Case law

Santillan

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 18 (see, e.g., Paragraphs 5.2(b) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery 19 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly … If only a 24 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 25 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g. by making appropriate markings in the margins). 26

(PC) Gleason v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

He also claims that Largoza and 22 CDCR violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. 23 Defendants answered the operative complaint on August 2, 2021, raising a qualified 24 immunity affirmative … 4 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor.

Padilla v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2021

If only a portion or portions 18 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 19 protected … If only a 27 1 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 2 clearly identify the protected

Vasquez

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 10, 2026

however, requires federal courts to dismiss such a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 6 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from 7 a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 21 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 22 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Tiggs v. County of San Joaquin

District Court, E.D. California · May 25, 2023

If only a portion or portions 13 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 14 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 15 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 23 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 24 margins).

Santillan

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 18 (see, e.g., Paragraphs 5.2(b) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery 19 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly … If only a 24 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 25 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g. by making appropriate markings in the margins). 26

Edwards v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 16 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 17 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of 27 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 28 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 1

Singe

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 24, 2025

appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In light of these deficiencies, the Court will grant 16 Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to allege a valid basis for federal jurisdiction and to set forth 17 their claims more clearly.

(PS) Conerly v. Kaiser Permanente

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 7, 2021

Moreover, the second amended complaint does not clearly allege a claim. … The second amended complaint contains no factual allegations clearly 27 establishing these elements. 28 //// 1

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Yeutter

756 F. Supp. 1351 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 14, 1991

In the instant case, plaintiff has failed to plead collaterality or establish that its claims are collateral. … However, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to liability for consequential damages caused by invalid marketing orders. See United States v.

Quaresma v. BC LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY

623 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2007

Immunities and other affirmative defenses may be upheld on a motion to dismiss only when they are established on the face of the complaint. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999); Jablon v. … The Harrises have not established that Lawrence Harris has either.

Tuggle v. City of Tulare

District Court, E.D. California · May 3, 2021

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 1 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 2 margins). … If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 11 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 12 margins

(PC) Lake v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 5, 2020

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 11 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 12 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … curiam). 3 • If plaintiff is attempting to state a claim that a public program or service violated 4 the ADA, he must show: (1) he is a “qualified

(PC) Kester v. Kokor

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2021

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Mich. 1 Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which 2 have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in 3 either federal

(PC) Michl v. County of Butte

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 6, 2022

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327. … Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin

(PC) Johnson v. Nelson

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 7, 2023

immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no 28 necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 1 | specified

Reaves v. National Life Ins. Co.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on 21 || a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 22 || protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) … This provision is not intended to modify 16 || whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 17 || production without prior privilege review.

Gavin Osuna v. River Delta Unified School District, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2026

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 8 (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 9 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … California 6 school districts like RDUSD are state agencies for purposes of determining Eleventh Amendment 7 immunity. Cole v.

(PC) Gipbsin v. Roth

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020

the box notifying plaintiff that “[t]his denial may constitute a strike under the 24 “Three Strikes” provision governing the filing of prisoner suits” or that the complaint “[s]eeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant immune … The 28 district court further concluded that several named defendants were entitled to immunity and that 1 the claims “relating to misconduct in his criminal prosecution and sentencing are barred by Heck 2 v.

Silva v. San Joaquin County

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

If only a portion or 20 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 21 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 3 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 4 markings in the margins).