Case law

Aliff v. Vervent, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 24, 2020

Where the parties have “clearly and unmistakably” delegated 6 such gateway issues to the arbitrator, the validity of the arbitration agreement is a question 7 for the arbitrator to decide, rather than the court. … Plaintiffs into believing they had 14 obligations which did not in fact exist. 15 In support of their FDCPA claim, Plaintiffs plead they are obligors to the Loan 16 Agreements, which qualifies

Tucker v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · May 27, 2021

In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the 13 claimant can perform other work. Id. § 404.1520(g). … Again, the 2017 amended regulations clearly provide that the 4 supportability and consistency factors are “the most important factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 5 404.1520c(b)(2); 416.920c(b)(2).

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

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 23, 2021

This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 10 || may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 11 || privilege review. … I will hold in confidence and not disclose to anyone not qualified under the 12 || Protective Order any Confidential Material (defined as material designated as 13 | “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or

Liou v. Organifi, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 8, 2021

. 5 “The question of whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to 6 arbitration, i.e., the ‘question of arbitrability,’ is an issue for judicial determination unless 7 the parties clearly … conditions has been proven by third-party clinical trials or studies” are provably false 16 because (1) there has only been one study of Green Juice conducted, not multiple; (2) the 17 single study of Green Juice does not qualify

Fisk v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

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

Consequently, “the burden of establishing 7 the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … And where “a case is 23 at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each 24 element.” Id. (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975)).

Dunsmore v. State of California

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

22 2 Defendants cite authority applying the Freedom of Information Act’s 23 exemption from disclosure for “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … Position Court’s Ruling Description Sick Call List SD_320377 Plaintiffs propose redacting The document qualifies

Hudson v. Libre Technology Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

In the present case, the parties established that 13 there are 108 putative class members. … Representation is adequate if the plaintiff “does not have conflicts of 17 interest with the proposed class” and is “represented by qualified and competent 18 counsel.” Dukes v.

Pierce v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2021

Amado’s 8 opinion that Plaintiff could “learn and retain simple instructions that have been clearly 9 explained,” and Dr. … The Ninth Circuit has 24 not established a minimum number of jobs that constitutes a significant number, 25 however, as the parties agree, the Court in Gutierrez v.

City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers v. AnaptysBio, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 20, 2021

Omission theories are not viable when “the Defendants clearly disclosed 26 material information to investors.” Oregon Pub. Emps. Ret. … Thus, the core operations theory fails to establish 11 || scienter. 12 B.

Appel v. Wolf

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 27, 2022

district court, the Ninth Circuit explained 18 that “the district court correctly held that Appel was reasonably likely to succeed on the 19 merits of his claim, given that Wolf’s email was facially defamatory and not immunized … These questions are meant to establish that Plaintiff was 8 involved in Millennium’s fraudulent conduct. The questions are not designed to establish 9 that Plaintiff had legal issues regarding securities fraud.

Palmer Kearney Mesa Properties, LP v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 22, 2024

On August 8 11, 2023, the City responded in writing asking Palmer why it believed the Project qualified 9 for an exemption. … Under this deferential standard, Plaintiffs must show 18 that the IAHR is “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the 19 public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” Samson v.

Shaw v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 21, 2020

Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2017), a case decided 9 after Sims, the Ninth Circuit stated that “[i]n light of the Court’s express limitation on its 10 holding in Sims, we cannot say that that holding is ‘clearly … Absent medical opinion evidence, the ALJ was not qualified to 24 make the determination he made. See Day v.

Vitiosus v. Alani Nutrition, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 5, 2022

derivatives of this term, consumers will be confused by the use of the 14 derivatives on the labels of products that do not qualify … Nutrition Facts 25 Defendant also argues that no reasonable consumer could be misled by the word 26 “FIT” because the Nutrition Facts on the wrapper fully and clearly disclose

Reynolds v. Madden

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2021

Under these 7 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion found 8 frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or seeking damages from defendants who are 9 immune. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 28 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 1 ACTION. 2 3.

Gopher Media LLC v. Melone

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 19, 2023

“Judgment on the 2 pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings 3 that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a 4 matter … Cal. 2010) (“If a claim for 24 attorneys fees and costs of suit could qualify as pecuniary or special damages for purposes 25 of pleading a trade libel claim, then each and every false statement would be actionable 26

The Upper Deck Company v. Flores

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 28, 2021

TCI Grp., 244 F.3d at 700 (citations omitted). 12 Defendants have a “minimal” burden in establishing a meritorious defense. Mesle, 615 13 F.3d at 1094. … No. 12 at 10.) 1 Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are “lawfully made.” 17 U.S.C. § 109. 2 The “first sale” doctrine limits the producer's power to control the resale of “genuine 3 goods bearing a true

Rodriguez v. Mondelez Global LLC

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

MDLZ argues: “Plaintiffs 26 falsely suggest that the default MADLs . . . establish a threshold for safety.” (Def.’s Mot. 27 at 13.) … Id. 6 (citations and quotations omitted). 7 The issues raised in Plaintiffs’ claims “do not clearly require the FDA’s expertise 8 or benefit from uniformity in administration

Martin v. Ford Alexander Corporation

160 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 1958

The particular instrument which he had, and which he used in his experiments, did not, under the circumstances in which it was tried,, reproduce the words spoken so that they could be clearly understood; but the proof is … More, as I stated at the trial, the paragraph has so many qualifying phrases,— such as “to the best of my knowledge and belief”, “Located with a high degree of accuracy”, — that it could be characterized, in the language

Pena v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 14, 2023

(AR at 66, 68.) 18 However, ALJ Treblin failed to outline any evidence establishing supportability in his 19 decision. (AR at 68.) … ALJ Treblin failed to outline any evidence establishing supportability in his 27 decision. (AR at 68.)

Martinez v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 17, 2023

Specifically, Defendant Ford urges that “Plaintiff is 16 clearly unable to identify any actual qualifying repair within an eligible warranty period - 17 by date, mileage or otherwise.” … Civil Code § 1794, CA UCC § 2313 2 “Under California law, to establish breach of express warranty, ‘the plaintiff must 3 prove (1) the seller’s statements constitute an affirmation of fact or promise or a 4