Case law

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

539 F. Supp. 2d 1214 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 6, 2007

Since, as established above, Qualcomm had been attending JVT meetings as early as January 2002 in which Mr. … Clearly, Mr.

Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Company

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 16, 2022

To satisfy the economic injury requirement under the UCL and FAL, Plaintiff 18 must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as 19 injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) … Consumers acting 28 reasonably in the circumstances would not believe that “hand wipes,” which are clearly 1 marked as such on the front and back of the package, (see Ex.

Baird v. Leidos, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 13, 2024

App. 1990) (“The responsibility of the 22 defendant is to ‘clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the 23 reason for the plaintiff's rejection.’”). … Thus, contrary to Defendant’s position, the evidence establishes that 28 Plaintiff exercised his right to take leave for a CFRA-qualifying purpose. 1 Next, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is unable to

Almahmodi v. City of La Mesa

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2021

App. 5th 766, 803 (2017). 23 The first element of the test – the “right at issue” – is clearly satisfied. … Thus, the 28 1 Complaint sufficiently alleges Hassan’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights 2 were violated.

Raul Santana Salgado v. Roberto Arias

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 29, 2024

(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 10 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 11 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … ALL PAYMENTS 11 MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 12 THIS ACTION. 13 3.

Holiday v. Unknown Officer or Officers of the San Diego Police Department

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 12, 2024

The Court finds 19 Holiday has established an inability to pay the required $350 filing fee and grants his IFP 20 motion. … All payments must be clearly identified by 13 ||the name and number assigned to this action. 14 3. DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 15 4.

Justino Rupard v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 5, 2025

The court was critical of “attempt[ing] to immunize 6 documents from disclosure by simply involving an attorney in the investigation” Id. (citations 7 omitted). … Oppo. at 23. 1 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 2 v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990).

Shamoun 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

Hickey

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2026

A concrete injury must be “real” and not “abstract.” 27 Id. 28 “[C]ertain harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III. … Id.; see also Popa, 153 F.4th at 792 (“TransUnion clearly cautions courts 15 not to treat an injury as concrete for Article III purposes based only on Congress’s say- 16 so.”).

Delena v. Lara

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2023

The Court finds Plaintiff has established an inability to 24 pay the $350 filing fee and GRANTS his IFP motion. … ALL PAYMENTS 16 MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 17 THIS ACTION. 18 3.

Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co.

166 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 2015

(Reply ISO Mot. to Dismiss 18 n. 7, ECF No. 62 (TEPCO’s Motion assumed arguendo that the operation of a nuclear power plant qualifies as an ultrahazardous activity).) … Each side has established that it would be inconvenient for them to conduct proceedings in the opposite country. However, the Court does not find it this factor to clearly weigh in favor of one side or the other.

Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.

128 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 20, 1955

This would demonstrate clearly why the Congress chose not to use the words “just compensation” or the measure of damage long judicially established under the wording of the Fifth Amendment. We interpret Lichter v. U. … These statements and representations were clearly false.

Aguilera v. Matco Tools Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 12, 2020

To satisfy this standing 12 requirement, the California Supreme Court requires a plaintiff to “(1) establish a loss or 13 deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e. economic injury, … The essence of the Noerr–Pennington 19 doctrine is that those who petition any department of the government for redress are 20 immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct. Sosa v.

Scott v. Cates

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2025

law 15 is immune from review in the federal courts.”). … (Id.) 11 Respondent counters that Petitioner has failed to establish that the state court’s resolution 12 of his claims was contrary to, or based on an unreasonable application, of clearly 13 established

Williams v. Shell Oil Co.

169 B.R. 684 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 11, 1994

The fact that the state court judge has already handled several trials and settlements in polybu-tylene matters qualifies the state court as the forum which can most efficiently adjudicate San Diego’s polybutylene plumbing … Williams and the other polybutylene plaintiffs are clearly entitled to a jury trial on their defect claims.

Grady v. Alonzo

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 21, 2020

(b). 7 Under these statutes, the Court sua sponte must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or 8 any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages 9 from defendants who are immune … In Devereaux, the Ninth Circuit held that “there is a clearly 16 established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the 17 basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated

Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2024

While the government “bears the burden to establish 19 that a once-live case has become moot,” West Virginia v. … For one, plaintiffs do not request an 3 opportunity to amend or explain how they would qualify for one.

Munoz v. Saul

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

At this step, every impairment is “severe” unless the medical 19 evidence “clearly establishe[s]” a “slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal 20 effect on an individual’s ability to work.” … Thus, 21 the ALJ erred by concluding Raul did not establish a Gulf War Illness impairment. 22 2.

United States v. Capati

980 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 1997

Yet that is what the government’s hyper-literal reading of Culbert would require. 8 Clearly then, the Supreme Court did not intend the above-quoted language to offer guidance on the issue of mens rea. … Diaz testified for the government in exchange for a grant of federal immunity for himself and his brother Jason and in exchange for a transfer from *1134 federal to state prison. 19 Of course, if all witnesses who testify

Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS

312 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 18, 2003

In both paragraphs, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that the “executives” qualify as an enterprise because they have an agreement to perform or assist in the performance of acts amounting to mail and wire fraud. … However, the case that Outboard Marine Corp. relies on, Vasquez , was a class action where the California Supreme Court clearly stated: *MCCCXLVII ... the [CLRA] provides in section 1752 that its provisions are not exclusive