Case law

Maye v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 8, 2022

A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 14 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 15 defendant who is immune from such relief … Plaintiff clearly states his disagreement with 6 || the determination made by the Social Security Administration by arguing that 7 (a) the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom

Union Oil Co. v. Bryan

52 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 14, 1943

The Pledden opinion clearly states that the question of jurisdiction was raised by the court sua sponte. … “The law is established that when a person by the compulsion of the color of legal process, or of seizure of his person or goods, pays money unlawfully demanded he may recover it back.” Arkansas Building Association v.

Palacios v. Lewis

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 21, 2023

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) a deprivation of a 24 right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation 25 was committed by a person acting under … All payments SHALL be clearly identified by the name and number 6 assigned to this action.

Lemus v. Robinson

District Court, S.D. California · May 7, 2025

Under these provisions, the 15 Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is 16 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 17 immune … Plaintiff claims Defendant Robinson was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs 13 in violation of the Eighth Amendment by conducting a procedure that he was not qualified 14 to perform which resulted in 14 months

Cruz v. United States

247 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 27, 2017

Does the Longshore Act immunize Nassco from suit as Cruz’s employer? Second, under maritime law, parties can recover for negligence when a defendant breaches a duty of reasonable care. … Nassco says Cruz can’t sue them because she qualifies as a borrowed employee (older cases use borrowed servant).

Cox Communications PCS, L.P. v. City of San Marcos

204 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 18, 2002

The courts have clearly said that local governments do not have discretion to deny permits. … The provision, "for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis,” clearly only modifies "requiring] fair and reasonable compensation.” 3 .

Franklin v. Newsom

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 7, 2021

Under these 8 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion 9 found frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or seeking damages from defendants 10 who are immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 21 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION; 22 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order by U.S.

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Parker

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 31, 2022

G & G entered into sublicense agreements with 14 various commercial entities throughout the country granting limited sublicensing rights to 15 publicly show the Program at their establishment. (Id. ¶ 19.) … 16 not an ‘inexorable command,’ prior decision of legal issues should be followed unless there 17 is substantially different evidence at a subsequent trial, new controlling authority, or the 18 prior decision was clearly

Marroquin De Portillo v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 2024

“The burden is on the party asserting the privilege to establish all the elements of 23 the privilege.” … Supp. 3d at 920 (“Courts, however, have rejected attempts to 11 immunize documents from disclosure by simply involving an attorney in the 12 investigation.”) (citing United States v.

Parker v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2021

Based on the 7 foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that she is unable to pay the $400 filing 8 fee. … Plaintiff clearly states her disagreement with the 26 determination made by the Social Security Administration by arguing that the ALJ erred by 27 finding that Plaintiff had “the residual functional capacity for

Degrazia v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 22, 2020

A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 11 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 12 defendant who is immune from such relief … Plaintiff clearly states her 26 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration by arguing that 27 the

Crenshaw v. Mony Life Insurance

318 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 27, 2004

“HIPAA clearly regulates the methods by which a physician may release a patient’s health information, including ‘oral’ medical records.” Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F.Supp.2d at 708 . … Harris ex parte in the absence of a qualified protective order and without a formal discovery request. The relief sought by Plaintiff is extreme and not warranted in this case.

Pinuelas v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 8, 2020

Based on the foregoing, the Court 10 finds that Plaintiff has established that she is unable to pay the $400 filing fee. … A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 17 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 18 defendant who is immune from such relief

Standifird v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 4, 2020

Based on the 9 foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that she is unable to pay the $400 filing 10 fee. … A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 16 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 17 defendant who is immune from such relief

Navarrette v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 9, 2023

the FAC, arguing 13 that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims present unwarranted extensions of Bivens, that 14 Plaintiff’s state constitutional claim is precluded by law, and that Defendant is entitled to 15 qualified … immunity.

Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Bear, LLC

259 F. Supp. 3d 1050 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 21, 2017

A warranty “whether material or not must be strictly complied with..,. ” Id, “To make such a statement a condition precedent to the performance of the agreement it must clearly appear that it was so intended.” Id. … However, under the Repair Clause, once the Polar Bear was no longer in danger of further loss, coverage for any repairs that qualified as “major,” or that required hot work or a waiver of subrogation, was, conditioned on

Jenks v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 13, 2020

A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 17 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 18 defendant who is immune from such relief … Plaintiff clearly states his disagreement with the determination made by the Social 6 ||Security Administration by arguing that “[t]he ALJ erred by improperly rejecting [Plaintiff's] 7 || testimony

Berryman v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 27, 2020

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that 13 she is unable to pay the $400 filing fee. … Plaintiff clearly 7 || stated her disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration by 8 || arguing that the ALJ “erred by classifying [Plaintiff's] mental health impairments as ‘non-severe,

Akins v. United State of America

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

The 3 Court further dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s own claim on several grounds, 4 including that Plaintiff (1) failed to state a claim, (2) sought damages from Defendants 5 immune from suit, (3) … instituted an action against a Defendant who clearly is deceased, and 6 (4) lacked constitutional standing.

Love v. Scribner

691 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 18, 2010

The Ninth Circuit stated: Because the California Court of Appeal ‘unreasonabl[y] applied] ... clearly established Federal Law,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), with respect to the comparative analysis, the inquiry into whether the … The federal appellate court held that the California Court of Appeal’s refusal to conduct a comparative juror analysis “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.”