Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,024 results
0.97s
District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2021
“To establish § 1983 liability, a Plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 10 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS 17 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 18 THIS ACTION. 19 4.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 9, 2022
Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 19–20. 2 A. … based on clearly established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 20, 2025
In other words, that description “clearly referred 13 to trade secret material” physically before the court in that case. … The “proponent 11 of . . . expert testimony” shoulders “the burden to establish its admissibility.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Oct 7, 2022
Courts, however, have rejected attempts to 12 immunize documents from disclosure by simply involving an attorney in the investigation. 13 See, e.g., United States v. ISS Marine Servs., Inc., 905 F. … Griffith, 161 F.R.D. at 698-99 (“memorandum [that] would 13 have been generated whether or not litigation was pending, . . . does not qualify as attorney 14 work product.”); Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 659 (holding “[s]ince
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Apr 8, 2026
The California Court of 21 Appeal has contrasted cases in which qualifying information was presented on the same 22 side as a challenged statement, against cases in which qualifying information was presented 23 on a … Plaintiff’s theory of consumer behavior contradicts well-established 5 law requiring courts to impute common sense to consumers.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAltemus v. Amazon.com Services
District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2024
On November 30, 2021, Rystedt asked Plaintiff to review descriptions 25 for several alternative positions for which Plaintiff might be qualified. (Id. ¶ 23, Ex. … First, Plaintiff does not clearly explain how this conduct amounts to disclosure 15 of a state or federal statute or point to which statute is violated.
Cited 0 timesUnknown948 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 4, 2013
First, Plaintiff must clearly allege (within the UCL cause of action) which law(s) or statute(s) she intends to utilize as the predicate acts under the unlawful prong. … the debt qualifies as a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA; and (3) the defendant has engaged in a prohibited act or has failed to perform a requirement imposed by the FDCPA.”
Cited 10 timesPublished273 F.R.D. 630 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 20, 2011
Thus, plaintiff is are represented by qualified and competent counsel and the Court finds adequacy met. 5. … The only expense claimed by Class Counsel that is not clearly a cost of this litigation alone is the scanning software expense of $1,018.86. (Doc. No. 92 at p. 3.)
Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 1, 2022
Respondent argues the state court’s denial of Grant’s claims was 3 neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court 4 law. … The remaining question is whether 18 the state court’s materiality determination was an unreasonable application of clearly 19 established Supreme Court law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Nov 29, 2023
The circuit court reasoned that the statutory language “imprisoned on a criminal 6 charge”—the same language in CCP § 352.1—clearly denotes “post-arrest custody.” Id. 7 at 803. … App. 1995) (establishing that “a construction of a statute which makes some 22 words surplusage” violates a “cardinal rule” of statutory interpretation).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2024
In short, while 7 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 8 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. … Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 23 “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 24 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jul 28, 2022
Delatoore, 281 14 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 To qualify to proceed IFP, section 1915(a)(2) requires a prisoner to submit a 16 “certified copy of the … “[A] purposeful act or failure 25 to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” that causes harm is sufficient to 26 establish deliberate indifference. Jett v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Feb 25, 2025
It is well-established that HIPAA “provides no private right of 23 action.” Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2016). … All payments must clearly identify the 11 name and case number assigned to this action. 12 3.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBarbarin v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
District Court, S.D. California · Oct 24, 2019
An equal protection claim may be established in two 8 ways. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY 2 || THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 3 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Ralph 4 || Diaz, Secretary, CDCR, P.O.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jan 24, 2022
A decision is 2 “contrary to” clearly established law if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to 3 that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case 4 differently … A decision involves an “unreasonable 6 application” of clearly established federal law if “the state court identifies the correct 7 governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts
Cited 0 timesUnknown922 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 4, 1995
Silva, for example, “campaigned hardest” in 1993, was the “best qualified,” ran a “very thorough campaign” and “got out there and did the work.” … Bris-chetto characterized as “clearly polarized.” 9/29/94 Tr., Brischetto, p. 13.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 26, 2025
Here, however, Wriden does not clearly allege Arias personally 24 participated in, or directed the inmate transfer. … App’x 540, 545 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating there is no clearly 22 established federal law that “a prisoner has a right to be free from false accusations”); Smith v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownShamoun v. People of the State of CA
District Court, S.D. California · Jul 19, 2021
the AEDPA, a federal court may not grant a 24 habeas petition challenging any matter adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless that 25 decision was: (1) contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly … Sykes, 433 U.S. 20 72, 81 (1977) (“[I]t is a well-established principle of federalism that a state decision resting 21 on an adequate foundation of state substantive law is immune from review in the federal 22 courts
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 27, 2024
See Glanden, 86 F.4th at 845–46 (To find impairments 2 nonsevere, substantial evidence must “support the finding that the record clearly 3 establishes the absence of severe impairments.”). … In the context of this living arrangement, 16 Claimant’s medical record is insufficient to clearly establish her mental impairments were 17 well-controlled and nonsevere.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 1, 2023
A litigant seeking equitable tolling must establish: (1) that 10 they have pursued their rights diligently; and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances 11 stood in their way. … The backend failure of the 3 district’s e-filing system is clearly beyond Plaintiff’s “direct control.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna