Case law

Lomeli

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 11, 2026

Terms and Conditions of Service set out “Claims and Legal 19 || Actions: Individual Binding Arbitration of Claims,” which stated in relevant part: 20 Claimant and UPS agree that, except for disputes that qualify … lays a proper foundation and establishes her personal knowledge 7 as to her declaration and the attached exhibits [i.e., arbitration agreements]”).

Valdez v. Marquez

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

This is sufficient to 5 establish the subjective element of an Eighth Amendment violation. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 12 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 13 ACTION. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this 14 Order by U.S.

Celgene Corporation v. Hetero Labs Limited

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 3, 2020

Insogna 9 The Court finds that Defendants have not established the three Shelton factors with 10 regard to Mr. Insogna’s testimony. … ResQNet.com, 2004 WL 1627170, at *5. 19 Defendants have also not established enough need to outweigh the burden on Dr. 20 Gay.7 Deposing Dr.

D.C. v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 19, 2019

. § 1983, 19 which provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives 20 any citizen of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of 21 the United … Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001). 21 Cabelka is the mother of minors D.C., T.C., and J.C. and represents that “Ms. 22 Cabelka is fully competent and qualified to understand and protect D.C., J.C., and

Grey v. Montgomery

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 15, 2019

“To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural 5 ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Walker v. 6 Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v. … The Magistrate Judge found this 12 conclusion was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court 13 law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. Dkt. No. 22 at 16.

Fuentes v. Montgomery

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 2, 2020

Under these statutes, 13 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 14 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 15 immune … ALL PAYMENTS 10 MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 11 THIS ACTION. 12 3.

Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Brewing Company

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 25, 2020

LEGAL STANDARD : 2 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 establishes several requirements for admissibility of 3 expert opinion evidence: (1) the witness must be sufficiently qualified as an expert by … Furthermore, there is no failure of disclosure because Plaintiff clearly 21 ||and repeatedly advised Defendant that it would be seeking all its lost profits and actual □ 22

Warren v. Parsons

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 9, 2021

Id. at 9, 10. 16 This pleading strategy does not suffice to establish individual liability in a civil 17 rights action, however. … Apr. 27, 2020) (rejecting 18 prisoner’s First Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds because “[n]o 19 reasonable correctional officer in [Defendants’] positions would have known that 20 reducing an inmate’s

Mendoza v. Garland

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

Second, Mendoza did not argue how the Order was clearly erroneous or 10 present any newly discovered evidence. … Mendoza further argues that his attorney’s unfamiliarity 28 with Judge Lopez’ Rules qualify as mistake or excusable neglect.

Soares v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 28, 2025

Although an individual may apply for a Blue 6 Zone, once installed, a Blue Zone is “available to all qualifying members of the public and 7 does not constitute reserved individual parking.” … Plaintiff contends that his requests for judicial notice 25 “should be viewed by this court as this evidence clearly clarifies and supports the plaintiff’s position of this dangerous and unprecedented street design

Orona

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 13, 2026

Under these 23 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, 24 which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 25 are immune … Proving liability for a 16 policy further entails demonstration that a plaintiff’s “deprivation resulted from an official 17 policy or custom established by a . . . policymaker possessed with final authority to 18 establish

San Diego Coastkeeper v. Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 31, 2023

Consequently, “the burden of establishing 20 the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … And where “a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff 9 must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. (quoting Warth v.

Horton v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 27, 2021

Ct. 1539, 1546 (2017). 19 “Section 1983 provides for liability against any person acting under color of law 20 who deprives another ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities … “Single acts may trigger municipal liability where ‘fault and causation’ were 27 clearly traceable to a municipality’s legislative body or some other authorized 28 decisionmaker.” Id.

Clay v. San Diego Police Department

District Court, S.D. California · May 4, 2023

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 23 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 24 committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME 4 AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO HIS ACTION; 5 4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order by U.S.

Canales v. Guzman

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

The Court finds 5 Plaintiff has established an inability to pay the required $350 filing fee and GRANTS his 6 IFP motion. … 2)(B) and § 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 12 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 13 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune

Yescas v. McCourt

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 20, 2023

Under these statutes, the Court must review and sua sponte dismiss 22 any complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from 23 defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. … All payments 27 SHALL be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. 28 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Order on Jeff Macomber, 1 Secretary, CDCR, P.O.

Gonzalez v. Malhotra

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 3, 2019

. . dismiss the complaint, or any 10 portion of the complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … This requires Plaintiff to clearly show specific facts that 12 demonstrate a credible threat of immediate and irreparable harm. Fed. R. Civ.

Amin

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 2, 2026

“[T]he burden for 21 establishing waiver of an arbitration agreement is the same as the burden for establishing 22 waiver in any other contractual context.” … to the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f a witness is not testifying as an 16 expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is (a) rationally based on 17 the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

Ramsey v. Corronado

District Court, S.D. California · May 24, 2023

The Court finds Plaintiff has 27 established an inability to pay the required filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP 28 Motion. … ALL PAYMENTS 20 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED 21 TO THIS ACTION. 22 3.

Kay v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 12, 2021

Plaintiff’s Medical Treatment After Approval 15 In order to remain entitled to LTD benefits, Plaintiff was required to continually 16 qualify as “disabled” under the Policy. … “[T]he district court should exercise its discretion to consider 9 evidence outside of the administrative record only when circumstances clearly establish 10 that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate