Case law

Borrego Community Health Foundation v. Hebets

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 27, 2025

However, as set forth 14 below (see Section III.B), Plaintiff must also establish statutory standing. 15 B. … , which requires the plaintiff to 3 establish proximate causation.”

Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels

978 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 16, 2013

Greenberg Traurig and Tarsadia Defendants discussed how to establish an enforceable promise so it would not be illusory. (Id. at 69:3-15.) … Moreover, the Owner's use is also conditioned on establishing a credit account at the Hotel for charges incurred at the Hotel. {Id. at 16 ¶ 4.3.)

Jones v. Terronez

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2020

To qualify for Section 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception, the danger 6 Plaintiff alleges that he faces must be real, proximate, and/or ongoing at the time he filed 7 his Complaint. … [which] clearly show 23 that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result . . . before the adverse 24 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Gomez v.

McPherson v. Allison

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

filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, or officer or 16 employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or 17 seeks damages from defendants who are immune … ALL 10 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 11 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 12 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy

Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 1, 2025

See Zynga, 2012 WL 2203063, at *4 (reasoning that “server architecture clearly 1 is far too general a description”). … Supp. 2d at 1021. 4 To be sure, the burden is on Nifty to establish that its asserted trade secrets are not 5 “publicly available or widely known in a given industry.”

Rudden v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2022

To meet that burden, the 3 ALJ was required to establish that Plaintiff could perform other work that exists in 4 significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c). … A step 4 two finding must be “clearly established by medical evidence,” not simply supported by 5 substantial evidence. Id. (quoting Webb v.

Ludwig

District Court, S.D. California · May 21, 2026

10 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 11 unreasonable application of, clearly … Petitioner alleges in his Opposition that dismissal is not warranted 3 because his Petition “establishes extraordinary and compelling medical 4 circumstances.”

Nguyen v. Colvin

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 25, 2024

Qualifying for Disability Benefits 23 To qualify for disability benefits under the Act, an applicant must show that: (1) she 24 suffers from a medically determinable impairment … Id. at 38-39. 21 The record clearly demonstrates Dr. Grisolia treated Plaintiff more than once. 22 Specifically, in a letter dated December 7, 2013, Dr.

Freeman v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 23, 2023

that her missing husband had likely been 21 “sucked under the ship” and “chopped up by the propellers” fell within maritime 22 jurisdiction because “[a] cruise line’s treatment of paying passengers clearly … McIndoe, 26 817 F.3d at 1174 n.3 (“We express no opinion on the circumstances under which a commercially distributed or mass-produced vessel would qualify as a ‘product’ under maritime law.”). 27 7 Plaintiffs do

Ramsey v. Thompson

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

Under this statute, the 22 Court must sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 23 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … “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

King v. Bird

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

Whether the Claim Is Potentially Meritorious 10 Even if Petitioner had established good cause, a “federal habeas petitioner must 11 establish that at least one of his unexhausted claims is not … App. 4th 992, 994, 997–98 (2009) (a trial court cannot change 27 a sentence clearly and unequivocally stipulated to in a plea agreement); Cal.

Hicks v. Diaz

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 20, 2020

Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte 21 dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 22 claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY 28 IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 1 4.

Valdez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 15, 2021

The party seeking to establish federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. See, e.g., McNutt v. … Id, at 428 The record also established that the new plaintiff was not an “indispensable” party at the time the complaint was filed. Jd. Thus, because “[d]iversity jurisdiction, once established.

Brinkerhoff v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 2019

While the voters clearly intended to restrict UCL standing, they just 26 as plainly preserved standing for those who had had business dealings … 355(a), the Court must also determine whether the Cream’s “composition . . . is 15 not generally recognized, among experts qualified

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

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

P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011) (“‘[T]he burden of establishing invalidity 19 of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.’” (quoting 20 35 U.S.C. § 282)). … 19 Bell Semic argues that it has adequately stated a claim for infringement of the ’760 20 Patent because the element-by-element analysis provided in its complaint “‘clearly

Hearn v. Warden

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 13, 2022

filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental 23 entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails 24 to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … “[A] purposeful act or failure 12 to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need,” which causes harm is sufficient 13 to establish deliberate indifference. Jett v.

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

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

P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011) (“‘[T]he burden of establishing invalidity 13 of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.’” (quoting 14 35 U.S.C. § 282)). … Cir. 2018). 1 Bell Semic argues that it has adequately stated a claim for infringement of the ’989 2 Patent because the element-by-element analysis provided in its FAC “‘clearly

Mitchell v. Bennett

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 21, 2022

Under these statutes, 5 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 6 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 7 immune. … “‘A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt 15 that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.’” 16 Id. (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v.

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

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

P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011) (“‘[T]he burden of establishing invalidity 19 of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.’” (quoting 20 35 U.S.C. § 282)). … 19 Bell Semic argues that it has adequately stated a claim for infringement of the ’760 20 Patent because the element-by-element analysis provided in its complaint “‘clearly

McEwen v. Benedict

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 2021

from a consumer debt; (2) the 17 defendant attempting to collect the debt qualifies as a “debt collector,” and; (3) the 18 defendant committed some act or omission in violation of the FDCPA. … Given that this situation 11 is clearly not encompassed by the FDCPA, the motions to dismiss the FDCPA claim are 12 GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 13 3.