Case law

Huntley v. Rosebud Economic Development Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 11, 2023

Based on this language, the appellate court held that 6 “the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.” Id. 7 at 988. … immunity, you will be limited as to what claims, if any, you may 3 be able to assert against us.”

Williams v. Newman

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 8, 2023

. § 1915, indigency is the benchmark for whether a plaintiff qualifies 8 for IFP status. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s sound 9 discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. … “To 10 establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by 11 the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed 12 by a person acting

Sanchez v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 2020

The alleged events took place at San Ysidro 6 Health Center (“SYHC”), a federally qualified health center, where Sanchez claims Dr. 7 Fajerman has a “history and practice of committing sexual acts against his patients … The party asserting subject 7 matter jurisdiction has the burden of persuasion for establishing it. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 8 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010).

The Estate of Paul Silva v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 15, 2023

She acted without consulting any qualified mental health 4 professional, and without reviewing Paul Silva’s medical records. … Venters clearly indicated that Silva 16 should have had a mental health examination to assist jail staff with stabilizing him 17 and ensuring a proper diagnosis before using lethal force to subdue him.

Fair Housing Council v. PENASQUITOS CASABLANCA CASABLANCA OWNER'S ASSOCIATION

523 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 26, 2007

Dkt No. 115, p. 1. *1183 Finally, the FHCSD argues the R & R “places too much value on the amount of the recovery,” whereas the jury’s verdict purportedly “clearly” found “(1) FHCSD was injured by PCOA’s practices” and “( … In its opposition to plaintiffs fee application, defendant contended that plaintiffs retention of counsel from Pescadero was unnecessary and that qualified attorneys in San Diego could have handled this case.

The Estate of Michael Wilson v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 1, 2023

“The party offering expert testimony has the burden of establishing its 27 admissibility.” Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Washington v. Washington State Bldg. … Steinberg noted he was not qualified to render a standard 15 of care opinion for nurses. (See Steinberg Dep. 73:6–9.) Dr.

Morris v. Blade

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

Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982), and it is well 12 established that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners” violates the 13 Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. … Cal. 1996). 11 CSP is not a “person” subject to suit under section 1983, and it is entitled to immunity from 12 suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Id.; see Seminole Tribe of Fla. 13 v.

Gonzales v. Madden

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 16, 2024

Gonzales has established an 14 inability to pay the required $350 filing fee, and the Court grants his IFP motion. … Whatever Juarez may have 7 been thinking, this was clearly an improper course of action that suggests an intentional 8 indifference to the medical emergency Gonzales was experiencing.

First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison

58 F. Supp. 972 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 16, 1945

Further, the complaint continues, that plaintiff is qualified to do a life insurance business in Arizona; that there is no provision for the admission of any such company in the State of California on any basis whatsoever … ; that only those foreign companies which transact their life insurance business on the legal reserve basis or fraternal basis can be so qualified; that the State of California has not regulated and has no provision for the

Soares

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2026

Co., 972 F.2d 16 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 17 For parties represented by legal counsel, the Ninth Circuit has “clearly and 18 repeatedly” held that mistake … The statute provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by 10 reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in

Christopher

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 21, 2025

C.I.R., 318 F.3d 924, 933 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “[t]he taxpayer bears 28 the burden of establishing that proceeds of a settlement are what the taxpayer contends 1 them to be.”). … Smith, 300 F.3d at 1029. 17 Defendant’s request for Plaintiff’s W-9 tax form is not frivolous or harassing, but instead 18 clearly reasonable.

Anderson v. United States

131 F. Supp. 501 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 30, 1954

The result of such conversion would have been to clearly capitalize the contracts in the old partnership, something that had never been done. … XXVII The plaintiff has failed to establish that the California partnership had an asset of substantial value at the date of H. S.

Staublein v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 1, 2020

to support several 9 bases to establish misleading statements. … The data that Defendants do not dispute tracking clearly 27 showed red flags.

Ramsey

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 2026

However, a state court decision cannot be contrary to or an unreasonable 19 application of clearly established federal law unless there is clearly established federal 20 precedent. See Brewer v. … “A Supreme Court 21 precedent is not clearly established law under section 2254(d)(1) unless the Court ‘squarely 22 addresses the issue’ in the case before the state court.” Jimenez v.

United States v. King

335 F. Supp. 523 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 1971

is amply established. … Clearly, some of the objections raised by defendants with regard to the Government’s application may bear consideration.

Thompson v. Rodriguez

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 7, 2023

Under 10 these statutes, the Court must sua sponte screen and dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, or any 11 portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from 12 defendants who are immune … Mar. 9, 2022) (finding defendant’s failure to proscribe antibiotic was “at 19 most, negligence” where prisoner’s wound “did not clearly present as infected.”). 20 For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC

Castro v. Gipson

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

Leave to Amend 19 Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he should make clear the 20 nature and grounds for each claim, and clearly and concisely explain … Monell does not apply to state agencies, such as the California 7 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because, as discussed above, such entities 8 are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Phipps v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC

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

Knight is copied 8 are communications “made not in anticipation of litigation, but instead generally as [they 9 relate] to routine mold and moisture inspections” and thus “clearly fall into the normal 10 course and … Therefore, the relationship between APEX and Pillsbury 7 qualifies as an attorney-client relationship under California privilege law.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. American International Surplus Lines Insurance

465 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2006

"Thus, the plain language of the CGL policy imposes the burden of reimbursing the deductible on the party qualifying as 'named insured,' as defined, and not on those qualifying as 'persons insured,’ ‘insured,’ or 'additional … '[A]ny exception to the performance of the underlying obligation must be so stated as clearly to apprise the insured of its effect.' " Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. FSLIC, 695 F.Supp. 469, 474 (C.D.Cal.1987), quoting Gray v.

Shallowhorn v. Carrillo

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 3, 2024

It is well established 22 that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not provide 23 a private cause of action. Webb v. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME 20 AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 21 3.