Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,024 results
1.31s
Beltran v. United States of America
District Court, S.D. California · Aug 23, 2023
Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977) (Section 405(g) “clearly 1 limits judicial review to ... a ‘final decision’ of the [Commissioner] made after a hearing.”); 2 Kildare v. … Thus, the Court investigates whether Plaintiffs’ contentions qualify 2 under the “similar fault” prong of Sub-Section C.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2021
Under these statutes, the Court 5 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 6 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE 8 NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 9 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Watch 10 Commander
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 30, 2023
“[T]he 5 advisory committee notes emphasize that Rule 702 is broadly phrased and intended to 6 embrace more than a narrow definition of qualified expert.” Thomas, 42 F.3d at 1269. … Specifically, “[a] contractual promise to ‘defend’ another against specified 19 claims clearly connotes an obligation of active responsibility, from the outset, for 20 the promisee’s defense against such claims,” id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · May 31, 2022
filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, or officer or 26 employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or 27 seeks damages from defendants who are immune … “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 12 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 13 committed by a person acting under
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2021
Under these statutes, the Court 24 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, 25 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … “[A] purposeful act or failure to respond 11 to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” that causes harm is sufficient to establish 12 deliberate indifference. Jett v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2022
Under these statutes, the Court 14 || must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 15 || malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … All 25 || payments should be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. 26 3.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEpperson v. General Motors, LLC
District Court, S.D. California · Dec 13, 2023
However, Tenzer went on to qualify that: 18 “[t]o be sure, fraudulent intent must often be established by circumstantial 19 evidence. … (emphasis added) 14 (“[Plaintiff] is unable to establish that Toyota violated its duty under California 15 law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 22, 2023
A medical report that post-dates a 16 plaintiff's qualified period for insurance does not in itself render the report irrelevant. See 17 Smith v. … The 18 ALJ clearly does not dispute the fact that Plaintiff had a cardiac condition in 2017. 19 Instead, the ALJ disputes Plaintiff’s statements of alleged heart attacks and stent 20 placement in 2017, finding that
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2021
App’x 528, 530 (9th 14 Cir. 2019) (finding entry into contracts for sale of cryptocurrency qualified as “use in 15 commerce”). … This factor weighs 5 less clearly towards Plaintiff, because while Plaintiff has shown that he is associated with 6 the Casper mark in the community of blockchain enthusiasts, he has not clearly 7 established either
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 14, 2022
Defendants also argue Plaintiff’s refusal to undergo the cystoscopy 12 was an act of willfulness and “clearly intentional” because she refused to undergo the 13 procedure “after she agreed to the cystoscopy in conversations … Evid. 23 702 (“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or 24 education may testify . . . if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 25 knowledge will
Cited 0 timesUnknownMichael v. La Jolla Learning Institute, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2019
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing he has standing to bring the 13 claims asserted. Takhar v. … While there 8 may be some requests for information that clearly indicate a document production is 9 necessary, “who is the plan administrator” is not such a request.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Oct 7, 2021
Even gross 2 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 3 See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME 2 || AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jan 29, 2020
Additionally, Petitioner argues the 4 California Supreme Court did not clearly and expressly rest its judgment on a state 5 procedural bar. … “To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a 9 state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Walker, 562 U.S. at 316 10 (quoting Kindler, 130 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2022
That Court clearly did not find it constituted sufficiently “good cause” to withhold application of the In re Robbins timeliness bar. … See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 (“Because Bounds did not create an abstract, 23 freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant 24 actual injury simply by establishing that
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Feb 22, 2021
Under these statutes, 11 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 12 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 13 immune … ALL PAYMENTS 19 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 20 THIS ACTION. 21 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to
Cited 0 timesUnknownDawes v. The People of the State of California
District Court, S.D. California · Dec 20, 2019
filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, or officer or 21 employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or 22 seeks damages from defendants who are immune … ALL PAYMENTS MUST 26 BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 27 ACTION. 28 3.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 2, 2020
Under these 24 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, 25 which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 26 are immune … ALL PAYMENTS 3 || SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 4 || THIS ACTION. 5 3.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAirborne San Diego, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
District Court, S.D. California · May 10, 2021
To qualify for coverage, 3 there must be a “Breakdown” or failure of “Covered Equipment,” in addition to other 4 requirements. (Id. at 28). … The burden is on the insured to establish that the claim 26 is within the basic scope of coverage and on the insurer to establish that the claim is specifically excluded.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Apr 29, 2024
Under these statutes, the Court must dismiss a 14 prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a 15 claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … The ADA provides 1 that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be 2 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or 3 activities
Cited 0 timesUnknownVerdandi VII, Inc. v. Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company
District Court, S.D. California · Jan 22, 2024
Sharples further stated that “getting this 18 information clearly established with back-up evidence is very important.” (Id.) … Accordingly, Plaintiff 5 has established good cause to amend the Rule 16 scheduling order to permit Plaintiff to file 6 its amended complaint. La Jolla Spa MD, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna