Case law

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Choice Advisors, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 15, 2024

V. … V.

In re Corcoran Irr. Dist.

27 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, S.D. California · May 1, 1939

The recent decisions of the Supreme Court of California (Moody v. Provident Irrigation District, 1938, 85 P.2d 128 ; Provident Land Corp. v. Zumwalt, 1938, 85 P.2d 116 ; El Camino Irrigation District v. … The decision of the Supreme Court (United States v.

Benton v. Ashcroft

273 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 25, 2003

Taylor v. … In Furguiel v.

United States v. Abatti

463 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 22, 1978

Commissioner, 132 F.2d 243, 248 (1st Cir. 1942), the First Circuit stated that it was the evident purpose of Congress in prescribing so minutely the dates on which the Board decisions become final . . . to enable the Commissioner … See Ashe v.

Sodexo Management, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Company

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

Cal. 2018); Anderson v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1903- LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Baker v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1904-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 26 2019); Browning v. … Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); 13 see also Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.

Asher v. Ingels

13 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 8, 1936

Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 U.S. 160 , 37 S.Ct. 30 , 61 L.Ed. 222 ; Hicklin v. Coney (1933) 290 U.S. 169, 177 , 54 S.Ct. 142 , 78 L.Ed. 247 ; Clark v. … New York (1914) 232 U.S. 14 , 34 S.Ct. 203 , 58 L.Ed. 483 ; Young’s Market Co. v. State Board of Equalization (D.C.Cal.1935) 12 F.Supp. 140 ; Joseph Triner Corporation, v. Arundel (D.C.Minn.1935) 11 F.Supp. 145 .

Spatcher v. San Diego Sheriff Dept.

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 16, 2019

Ashcroft v. … See Board of Cty. Comm’rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 24 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (“[A] a municipality cannot be held liable solely because 25 it employs a tortfeasor.”); Jackson v.

Alegre v. Contreras

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 16, 2019

See Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1247 25 (9th Cir. 2013). The facts of this case have been thoroughly detailed in previous documents, 26 including this Court’s previous order granting motion to dismiss. … Ctr. v.

The Estate of Omar Moreno Arroyo v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 29, 2025

Rodney v. Garett, 18 116 F.4th 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Gonzalez v. … Greer v. County of San Diego, 634 15 F.Supp.3d 911, 921 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022).

Truong v. O' Malley

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 4 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. California 5 Men’s Colony v. … Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 17 1984). The facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, 18 definiteness, and certainty.” United States v.

Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2021

See United States v. … See id.; Ludwig v.

Schroeder v. City of Vista

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

Gov’t Code 17 § 54956.9 and Page v. MiraCosta Cmty. Coll. … Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989).

Torbert v. Gore

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 31, 2020

That same day, Deputy Brown observed || Plaintiff doing pull-ups and push-ups in the medical housing unit. … Hope v.

Mirabelli v. Olson

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 3, 2025

(2) OPENING FACT DISCOVERY MARK OLSON, in his official capacity as FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 16 President of the EUSD Board … v. Durand- 8 || Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 n.5 (9th Cir. 1983). 9 2.

Watkins

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 18, 2025

(citing Munguia- 4 Brown v. Equity Res., 2017 WL 2645500, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2017)). Third, the discovery 5 requests are irrelevant, disproportionate, and unduly burdensome in violation of Fed. R. Civ. … v.

Florence v. Benrostrol

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

Pl.’s Mtn. at 5; citing Brown v. … Jones v. Blanas, 15 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 16 2004); Fink v.

Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 26, 2020

Id.; see also Butler v. … Harper v.

Jones v. Pollard

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

Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 14 “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 15 not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. … Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th 24 Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v.

Emrit

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

See Ivey v. … City 14 of Oakland v.

Malik v. Universal Resources Corp.

425 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 3, 1976

See, e. g., White v. Abrams, 495 F.2d 724 , 727 note 2 (9th Cir. 1974); Flaks v. Koegal, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974); Pfeifer v. … See Ernst & Ernst v.