Case law

Sahel Oncology, LLC v. STA Pharmaceutical Hong King Limited

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 18, 2024

Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (Cal. 1996). 9 “[T]o qualify as a misrepresentation, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to 10 plausibly establish that the statement was false when made.” … The contract clearly states, however, that the first 17 batch would be made on the GLP line.

Griffin v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2024

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a federal court 16 may only grant a habeas corpus petition if the adjudication of the claim resulted in a 17 decision that (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … Having presented 14 neither an argument that extraordinary circumstances affected his filing nor a convincing 15 presentation of diligence in pursuing his rights, Petition has not established that he qualifies 16 for

Mcanally v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 25, 2020

He clearly enjoys the opportunity to share his frustrations. … Cal. 10 2008) (noting that an “ALJ is simply not qualified to interpret raw medical data”). 11 Here, the record is devoid of any opinion by a treating or examining physician, or 12 medical expert, that assesses

Tan v. Quick Box, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 14, 2024

Defendant provides no 11 reasoning beyond her boilerplate objections as to why these portions of the depositions 12 would qualify as improper evidence. 13 An objection alleging … See Mot. at 23–26. 27 “Corporate director or officer status neither immunizes a person from personal 28 liability for tortious conduct nor subjects him or her to

Miller v. Easy Day Studios Pty. Ltd.

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

Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 790 28 (2011) (“California correctly acknowledges that video games qualify for First 1 Amendment protection.”); Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc. … (Id.) 27 Miller hasn’t pled any facts to establish that he meets either one of the Lexmark 28 requirements.

Garrison v. Ringgold

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 6, 2020

As such, Ringgold has 23 obstructed Plaintiffs’ efforts to conduct discovery and his complete failure to comply 24 with the court’s order demonstrate his conduct was willful as it was clearly done to 25 frustrate the … For example, a failure to 26 produce documents as ordered establishes sufficient prejudice. Id.

Morgan v. Bank of America, National Assocation

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 18, 2021

He has reportedly 5 surveyed 165 sites for accessibility and has previously been qualified as an expert. (Id. ¶ 6 3.) … substantially predominates over the claim 12 or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 13 Here, Plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claim is directly predicated upon the ADA violation, and 14 therefore clearly

Lundstrom v. Young

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

(stating the statute “establishes a clear date after which applications for attorney fees 12 must be rejected as untimely” but the statute is “less clear about a time before which 13 applications must be rejected”). … Young’s success clearly was not “trivial” and was not purely procedural. The 4 Court finds this requirement met. 5 III.

Fernandez v. Duarte

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 11, 2023

Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2010) 16 (“Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent clearly establish[] that prisoners do not enjoy 17 an absolute right to receive visits while incarcerated, even from … Well-established Supreme Court 18 precedent forecloses such a finding.

Barragan v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 6, 2022

$100) for a given Success Sharing payment and (2) received 25 reporting time pay . . . for a shift qualifying for reporting time pay under California law 26 during the same Success Sharing plan period, within … 13 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412). 14 Utne alternatively seeks permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b), contending 15 the three prongs for such intervention are clearly

McElroy v. Juarez

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

. § 1915(g); 13 Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055. 14 To qualify for § 1915(g)’s exception, the danger allegedly faced must be real, 15 proximate, and/or ongoing. … [which] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 16 damage will result ... before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 65(b)(1)(A); Gomez v.

Jackson v. Covello et.al.

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

Under these 23 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 24 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 25 who are immune … ALL 27 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 28 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 1 3.

Hernandez v. County of San Diego Child Protective Services

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

May 24 3, 2016) (“Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional deprivation by showing that alleged 25 government defamation encouraged or prompted a third-party to injure plaintiffs. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME 19 AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 20 3.

Homefed Village III Master, LLC v. Otay Landfill, Inc.

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

Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)). 27 FRE 702 states: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the 28 1 qualified … The Section 401 permit issued by the 2 Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Clean Water Act clearly states 3 || that “substances hazardous to aquatic life including, but not limited to, petroleum 4 |

Maldonado v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · May 17, 2024

In a rare case, however, where the record 18 clearly establishes the plaintiff is disabled, then there is no point in conducting further 19 proceedings before the agency because further proceedings would serve only to … As counsel put it at the hearing, plaintiff would “grid out at sedentary” and be qualified 26 for benefits. AR 135.

Durruthy v. Charter Communications, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2020

“Accordingly, the question of arbitrability is left to the court unless the 6 parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” Id. at 988. … “Nothing in the provision’s language 9 suggests the parties intended to limit or qualify this provision by also granting the 10 arbitrators broad authority to award all types of relief authorized by law.

Hoyt v. Valdovinos

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2021

For this reason, the Court will apply federal law to OIG’s privilege 14 claims.3 15 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official … Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 13 614; Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 300–01. 14 “If the nondisclosing party does not meet this initial burden of establishing cause to 15 apply the privilege,

In re SDG&E Consolidated Cases

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 19, 2021

issue to a coordinate political department”; (2) “a lack of judicially 25 discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it”; (3) “the impossibility of deciding 26 without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly … “[N]ot even military judgments are completely immune from 11 judicial review.” McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1358 (11th Cir. 12 2007).

Williams v. Brant

District Court, S.D. California · May 9, 2023

Under these statutes, the 17 Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, if it is 18 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 19 immune … ALL PAYMENTS 12 MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 13 THIS ACTION; 14 4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve

Dioquino v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 5, 2021

Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999)). 1 Extrinsic evidence may be considered “only when circumstances clearly establish 2 that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate … Therefore, “the fact that a claimant has 19 qualified for state government disability benefits is properly taken into consideration as 20 evidence of disability but is not determinative.”