Case law

Sepulveda v. Galindo

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2021

Under these statutes, 25 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 26 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 27 immune … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE | || CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 2 3.

Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2022

Like constitutional injuries, the threat of physical 15 danger and harm absent injunctive relief qualifies as irreparable. Cf. Leiva-Perez v. … Aleman Gonzalez is Clearly Irreconcilable with Ali and Rodriguez 9 An intervening change in controlling law is found where the reasoning or theory of 10 a case “is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning

McCraner v. Wells Fargo & Company

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 30, 2023

Wells Fargo continued 6 supplying anonymized reference letters even after it determined that the Apex 7 shell companies weren’t qualified for Wells Fargo’s own merchant processing 8 services. … , but they can’t establish a similar 25 inference as to the Enterprises actions toward their customers.”

Selker v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC

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

While a plaintiff is the master of his or her complaint and may 6 choose where to file suit, removal qualifies as “an important check on the plaintiff’s 7 mastery.” Polo v. … Instead, the issues center on CDA immunity being asserted as a 14 defense in the context of a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. See 15 Barnes v. Yahoo!

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC

26 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2014

However, even in the quoted statement from her deposition testimony, above, Makaeff qualified the testimony with the clause, “which I felt these laws were broken.” (Dkt. No. 300-2, Ex. 3, at 771-72.) … As the Supreme Court recognized m Harte-Hanks , “failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reasonably prudent person would have done so, is not sufficient to establish reckless disregard.” Id.

In Re Cell Tower Litigation

807 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2011

As discussed above, ATC cannot establish effective prohibition. Accordingly, the City is entitled to summary judgment on ATC’s § 253 claim. II. … Second, if the regulation only indirectly affects interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, the Court must determine whether the regulation imposes a burden “that is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local

Garot v. County of San Diego

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

Finally, the docket in 20 this case is long and counsel spent many hours performing extensive research on the issues of 21 qualified immunity, Monell issues, and motions to dismiss. … Battaglia, Esq. to establish a Special Needs Trust for Ms. Garot. Ms. Battaglia filed the petition to establish the trust and the hearing was 25 scheduled for December 9, 2022 before the Honorable John B.

S.S. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 27, 2023

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence set forth the 27 following requirements to establish admissibility of expert opinion evidence: (1) the 28 witness must be sufficiently “qualified as an expert by knowledge … “When an expert meets the threshold 18 established by Rule 702 as explained by the Supreme Court in Daubert, the expert may 19 testify and the jury decides how much weight to give that testimony.”

Arrant v. Zambrano

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 9, 2020

Under these 17 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, 18 which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 19 are immune … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 9 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 10 ACTION; 11 3.

Martinez v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 20, 2021

The Ninth Circuit held that the overtime pay claim 3 was preempted under § 301 “because California overtime law does not apply to an 4 employee working under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement, Cal. Lab. … Without this 10 information, the Court is left with Schedule A that clearly shows that banquet servers are 11 paid minimum wage. See Doc.

Fujikura Composite America, Inc. v. Dee

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 28, 2024

Where, by 9 contrast, a requested injunction would require the nonmovant to take affirmative action to 10 alter the status quo (i.e., a mandatory injunction), the movant must “establish that the law 11 and facts clearly … Second, Plaintiff has established 5 that the Axiom line is similarly situated to the Speeder and Ventus lines.

Abrogina v. Kentech Consulting, Inc.

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

Rather, the plaintiff “must prove the facts necessary to carry the burden of 4 establishing that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied by a preponderance of the 5 evidence.” … The Court disagrees. 6 Clearly, Plaintiff’s criminal conviction is listed in both the “Cops 360 Nationwide” section 7 as well as the “County Validation” section of her report. (See Fok Decl., Ex. 6.)

Camacho

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

Thus, while 18 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the statutory filing fee in one 19 lump sum, they nevertheless remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly 20 payments. … P. 4(c)(3). 27 If Plaintiff instead chooses to amend, his new pleading must be clearly titled as his 28 Amended Complaint, contain S.D. Cal.

Garcia v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 3, 2022

filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, or officer or 23 employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or 24 seeks damages from defendants who are immune … ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME 23 AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

Spriggs v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 9, 2024

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the 27 jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … ‘[was] lawful,’ and 19 hence, could not constitute the ‘extreme or outrageous’ behavior required to establish the 20 tort.”); Funk v. Town of Paradise, 2015 WL 3794891, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

Brown v. Montgomery

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

After Petitioner was convicted, he admitted he had previously been 14 convicted of a crime that qualified as a prior-serious felony and strike (Cal. Penal Code § 15 667(a)-(i)). … However, if 11 both claims are “sufficiently related” or “intertwined” so that raising one clearly implies 12 the other, exhausting one claim will also exhaust the related claim, so as the failure to 13 explicitly raise

Acedo v. Fisher, JR

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 16, 2020

established federal law must be “objectively unreasonable.” … Accordingly, since Petitioner has failed to show that the 16 determination of the state court was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly 17 established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination

Grimes v. Board of Trustees for Northcentral University

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

statute, courts shall review and sua sponte dismiss any complaint or part thereof that is 11 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks damages 12 from defendants who are immune … Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001). 13 Plaintiff clearly alleges that Northcentral receives federal financial assistance. (See SAC 14 ¶ 4.)

Doe v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 9, 2020

CODE § 815(a), immunizes the 11 County from civil liability except where provided by statute. (Mot. 11.) … This is a conclusory 18 allegation that does not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.

Lightoller v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 12, 2023

A concrete injury must be “real” and not “abstract.” 21 Id. 22 “[C]ertain harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III. … Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that district courts are bound by 3 intervening Supreme Court authority and must reject any prior Ninth Circuit precent that 4 is clearly irreconcilable with that