Case law

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

Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC

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

With respect to the strict liability allegations, strict products liability is 11 ||not an intentional tort; rather, it qualifies as an abridged version of negligence. … Yet, Movants argue “[t]he facts of the matter clearly do no 16 support such a finding.” Jd. at 17:20.

Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Brewing Company

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

Palmatier was not qualified to offer 16 this testimony; and (3) Dr. Palmatier did not follow a “reliable methodology” in his brain 17 node diagram. … As Stone points out—when companies want to establish relationships with 22 customers and improve their brand, they do not hire neurologists.

LBF Travel Management Corp. v. DeRosa

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 22, 2022

If there is actual knowledge, even “ordinary business transactions” 15 can qualify as substantial assistance. … SAP ¶¶ 211–31. 12 California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) “establishes three varieties of unfair 13 competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

Citizens Development Corporation, Inc. v. San Diego, County of

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

This is 15 clearly on the higher end of the potential liability range, and as such, this settlement is not 16 “so far ‘out of the ballpark’” of Escondido’s potential share of liability that the settlement 17 is inequitable … The San Marcos LSM Settlement Trust shall be established as either a 22 “Designated Settlement Fund” or a “Qualified Settlement Fund” pursuant to 23 Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C

Allmaras v. University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 20, 2024

Rather, Defendants have only attempted to establish that the CBA provides 27 1 that rate of pay as to some of the covered employees. … However, because “statutes do not apply retroactively unless 19 the Legislature clearly indicated otherwise,” Phillips v. St. Mary Reg’l Med.

Walker v. Stryker Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 2, 2023

Plaintiff’s statement in his declaration that he “does not remember when exactly I 17 received [the Stryker Orthopaedics Overview], but I estimate that it was sometime during 18 2020[,]” Plaintiff’s Decl. ¶ 8, clearly … The law establishes different payment deadlines depending on the manner of departure. . . .

Wilson v. Santana

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 5, 2023

Under these statutes, the Court 28 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 1 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE 10 NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 11 3.

Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 25, 2019

The Court need not specifically issue an order that all 17 produced materials be subject to the counsel-only provision, when any number of 18 documents may not qualify for such protection. … subpoena where Defendant subpoenaed third party 7 for all “all documents pertaining to the National Committee Against Repressive 8 Legislation in the witness' possession, custody, or control” and plaintiffs had not clearly

Cabatit v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2024

. § 404.1504).) 21 Since the filing of the parties’ briefs, the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion 22 overturning McCartey as “clearly irreconcilable with the revised regulations.” See Kitchen 23 v. … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the 14 “paragraph C” criteria.

United States v. Tomoya Kawakita

96 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 1951

It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. … It rarely can be established by any other means.

CliniComp International, Inc. v. Cerner Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 28, 2022

“A patentee could do so, for example, by 1 clearly characterizing the invention in a way to try to overcome rejections based on prior 2 art.” … Rather, CliniComp also repeatedly and clearly stated that the 8 claimed “portion” is created through partitioning.9 (Doc. No. 71-2 at E-7, E-9, E-18, E- 9 21.)

Figueroa v. Capital One, N.A.

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 21, 2021

An examination into whether there are “legal or factual questions 24 that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy” is required. Id. … Ultimately, “[i]n most 23 situations, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are 24 preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.”

Carroll v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 28, 2020

Under these statutes, 19 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 20 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 21 immune … ALL 14 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 15 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 16 3.

Mandalevy v. B of I Holding, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 26, 2022

The Ninth 3 Circuit found that this Court’s conclusion that records obtained through FOIA did not 4 qualify as a corrective disclosure was reversible error. Id. at 1209. … However, the Ninth 5 Circuit agreed that the article in Seeking Alpha did not qualify as a corrective disclosure 6 because it contained only public information. Id.

Cavalier v. Newsom

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 11, 2020

Under these 17 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion 18 thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from 19 defendants who are immune … Ex Post Facto Claims 16 Next, while Plaintiff’s Complaint does not clearly allege a separate ex post facto 17 challenge to his September 6, 2019 parole suitability determination

3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne

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

18, 2017). 7 Intrepid claims only in conclusory fashion that “3D Systems’ and Kuester’s conduct 8 constitutes . . . fraudulent business acts,” and does not identify the conduct that allegedly 9 qualifies … Because the Court previously allowed Intrepid to amend to “set forth more clearly 18 a basis for the UCL claim” but Intrepid failed to do so, this claim is dismissed without 19 leave to amend.

Universal Protection Service, LP v. Coastal Fire and Integration Systems, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 15, 2023

Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged likelihood of 21 confusion, nor could they, since the apartment complex included the allegedly infringing 22 Coastal Fire design drawing in a solicitation for a bid to Plaintiffs, clearly … Even looking beyond these specific allegations 14 regarding how the computer may qualify as “protected,” a review of the other factual 15 allegations in the FAC fails to reveal any other facts that the Court may use to

Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 7, 2022

The party seeking a preliminary injunction “must establish ... that the 12 balance of equities tips in his favor.” … (/d.) 6 Preserving and protecting innovation in the air cargo industry is clearly in the public’s 7 interest, and for that very reason, the issuance of a preliminary injunction would not be in g || the public

Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 2021

See In re 22 Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1174 (S.D. … Cal. 2015) (“Generally, unless the settlement 18 is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to a lengthy and expensive 19 litigation with uncertain results.”).