Case law

Maycumber

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 4, 2026

At this step, a limited burden of 25 production shifts to the Social Security Administration to establish that the claimant can 26 perform this other work. … In reviewing an ALJ’s determination at the second stage of its analysis, the 22 reviewing court considers whether “the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the 23 medical evidence clearly established that [the claimant

Williams v. Daub

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

Plaintiff reported continued suicidal 6 thoughts and self-harm to Defendant Moreno, his assigned Primary Clinician, while at RJD 7 MHCB, and Defendant Moreno said, “while I’m not qualified to diagnos[e], I believe you … As a state agency, the CDCR is 17 immune from actions for money damages and retrospective declaratory relief brought 18 under § 1983 under the Eleventh Amendment. See Brown v.

Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Group

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 8, 2021

The Court previously found 4 that Plaintiffs had failed to clearly allege secondary liability claims for fraud. ECF No. 5 89 at 38. … Co., 471 F.3d at 996, n.6 (suggesting that conduct that qualifies as 9 aiding and abetting fraud may, in some cases, violate the UCL).

Harner v. USAA General Indemnity Company

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 2022

This suggests 4 that if attorney’s qualify as expenses under the Policy, Plaintiff would not be entitled to 5 them. … The amounts accepted or denied shall be clearly documented in the claim file unless the claim has been denied in its entirety. 24 (1) Where an insurer denies or rejects a first party claim, in whole

O'Neil v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 2022

Defendant 24 counters that Plaintiff failed to meet his threshold burden to establish that he suffered from 25 a medically severe impairment. … "An ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or 23 combination of impairments only when his conclusion is 'clearly established

Franklin-Chomas

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 14, 2025

This provision clearly contemplates delegating the issue of 16 arbitrability to the arbitrator. See Mohamed v. … Further, none of the 20 allegations show the requisite control to establish an agency relationship.

Arellano v. Doe 1

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

Under these 7 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 8 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 9 who are immune. … Id. at 484 (citations 17 omitted). 18 In this case, Plaintiff has failed to establish a liberty interest protected by the 19 Constitution because

Strauss v. Magana

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 2021

Under these 20 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion found 21 frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or seeking damages from defendants who are 22 immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 17 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 18 ACTION. 19 3.

Abdi

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 17, 2025

Under these statutes, the Court 10 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, 11 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … To state a claim 28 under the ADA, Plaintiff must allege: 1 (1) he ‘is an individual with a disability;’ (2) he ‘is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the

Bartel v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co.

371 F. Supp. 3d 769 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2019

This exception aligns with the California rule for establishing privity noted above. TEPCO contends that Taylor is not controlling here. … Under Article 2 of the Compensation Act, there are a variety of definitions that may qualify an entity as a "Nuclear Operator." See Compensation Act art. 2 (listing eight possibilities).

Franco v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 18, 2019

addresses each claim, in turn.2 6 Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any ‘person’ who, under color of 7 law, deprives any other person of rights, privileges, or immunities … Although a municipality qualifies as a “person” under § 1983, a 10 municipality cannot “be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”3 Id. at 11 691.

Tirgari v. Kazemipour

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 15, 2022

(“R2 24 Ventures”) to establish a joint venture where both parties were to invest into “agreed upon” 25 companies and technologies. [SAC ¶ 7]. … “Plaintiffs 19 must ‘clearly refer to tangible trade secret material’ instead of referring to a ‘system which 20 potentially qualifies for trade secret protection.’”

Rutherford v. Steadman

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 24, 2025

Thus, while 7 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the statutory filing fee in one 8 lump sum, they nevertheless remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly 9 payments. … Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[S]tate departmental regulations do not 4 establish a federal constitutional violation.”); Case v.

Spatcher v. Baird

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 24, 2019

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a 8 right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation 9 was committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE 25 NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION; 26 3.

United States v. Orozco

630 F. Supp. 1418 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 28, 1986

Agents are not required to resort to measures that will clearly be unproductive. United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d at 310 . … She argues that these calls were clearly not criminal in nature.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2021

Sec. of State, Nov. 8, 2022 Qualified 19 Statewide Ballot Measures, at https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified- 20 ballot-measures (last visited Mar. 19, 2021). … The Act also “requires the [FDA] to establish tobacco product standards 8 to protect the public health.”

U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Hard Rock Tile & Stone

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

“The burden of proof is on the insurer to 5 establish misrepresentation or concealment.” Atmel Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 6 Co., 416 F. Supp. 2d 802, 810 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Thompson v. … However, a retail store located outside might qualify, but 27 only so long as the store faces a street.

Davis v. San Diego Police Department

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 18, 2019

proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to sua 10 sponte dismissal, however, if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune … “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause 9 protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to 10 invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests

Rank v. Krug

90 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 13, 1950

Even though not immune from such destruction, they are, nevertheless, an appropriate subject for legislative protection. See United States v. … The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Great Falls Mfg. Co. v.

Rivera

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2026

E at 36–37) is “clearly an integral part of Plaintiff’s allegations because he 19 has no valid claim if the Release is found to be valid.” See Young v. … The 25 Release also contains several statements qualifying that Plaintiff releases his claims “to the 26 fullest extent permitted by law.” (See Doc. 5-2, Ex. E at 36–37.)