Case law

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

Koengeter v. Saul

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

An impairment is not severe if clearly established objective medical evidence 12 shows only slight abnormalities that minimally affect a claimant’s ability to do basic work 13 activities. … Snell’s opinion no weight because he performed testing for two 6 days only and was not qualified to render a medical opinion. AR 33. The ALJ also noted 7 that, although Mr.

Jihan, Inc. v. Amco Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. California · May 17, 2021

“The burden is on the insured to establish that the 11 claim is within the basic scope of coverage and on the insurer to establish that the claim is 12 specifically excluded.” Id. (citation omitted). … In order to qualify 6 as a “bulk sale” under California’s Uniform Commercial Code, the sale of the seller’s 7 business must be “more than half of the seller’s inventory and equipment, as measured by 8 value on the date

Jones v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 2022

Huntington 15 Beach Union High Sch., 2 Cal. 5th 648, 655 (2017). 16 This failure to fully comply is clearly addressed in J.M., where the California 17 Supreme Court disapproved the ruling … No. 41 at 17-19.) 21 Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a 22 person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 23 U.S.C.

L.C.C v. The United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 1, 2022

penalties with respect to those taxes not caused by negligent delay, payable to 15 any federal, state or foreign taxing authority; any statutory or Court ordered allowances for qualifying … the Code has been superseded by a subsequent Federal tax law, the reference 7 shall be deemed to be to the renumbered provision or the corresponding provision of the subsequent law, unless to do so would clearly

Morel v. HNTB Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 7, 2025

Additionally, the Court noted that the 3 Settlement Agreement and Notice both clearly state that PAGA Employees cannot opt out 4 from settlement of the PAGA Claims. (Doc. No. 58 at 34.) See also Arias v. … In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177 26 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 27 (N.D.

Caccamise v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 18, 2020

Plaintiff 26 counters that “Defendants withheld clearly relevant documents that were central to the 27 prosecution of Plaintiff’s case” and “Plaintiff’s counsel should not be penalize[d] for 28 attempting to obtain … The Court is also persuaded by Plaintiff’s 15 argument that “[c]ases arising under the FDCPA and FCRA would most certainly qualify 16 as ‘undesirable’ absent the fee provision enacted by Congress,” Mot. at 14, and that

Johnson v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 15, 2020

Under this statute, the Court must 21 sua sponte dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to 22 state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. … Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995)). 21 Petitioner has failed to establish his entitlement to mandamus.

Smith v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

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

Following a full briefing of Defendant’s 3 objections, this Court issued an order finding Magistrate Judge Gallo’s order neither clearly 4 erroneous nor contrary to the law and overruling Defendant’s objections. … Plaintiff 4 argues that “[t]he fact that Aetna reinstated Smith’s disability benefits because she filed 5 suit and it did not want to face the trial that would occur unequivocally qualifies as ‘some 6 degree of success

Wisnesky v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 16, 2024

DISCUSSION 2 To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, a claimant must 3 show: (1) the claimant is unable “to engage in any substantial … s stated reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony 17 suffers from at least one of two failings: (1) for most, the ALJ fails to clearly

Arellano, Jr. v. San Diego, County of

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

U.S.C. § 1983, 8 a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that a person acting under color of state law 9 committed the conduct at issue; and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some 10 right, privilege or immunity … the 10 SDRFTF and in conjunction with both County and Mexican officials to effect Plaintiff’s 11 arrest in Tijuana on November 7, 2010, see SAC at 7, 10, 18, 44, he has not also served 12 the United States, as is clearly

Carlborg v. Department of Navy

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 17, 2025

that invasion of those privacy interests is not “clearly unwarranted” 10 based on any existing public interest in disclosure of the redacted information. … To qualify as a record “subject to restrictive 17 disclosure, [the material] must reflect some quality or characteristic about [the individual].” 18 Unt v.

Greenley v. Kochava, Inc.

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

Because California law recognizes “an entitlement to unjustly earned profits,” to 16 establish standing, plaintiffs must only establish a stake in the profits garnered from their 17 personal data and that it is … On the other hand, 14 information about particular activity conducted and search terms used on an app qualify 15 as the “contents” of communication. See Hammerling v.

Borrello v. Respironics California, LLC (P)

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 5, 2024

Employees “were required to provide proof of vaccination by January 10, 2022 6 or have requested and qualified for a reasonable accommodation.” … Fairchild Indus., Inc., 885 F.2d 498, 509 (9th Cir. 1989) (“To establish actual fraud . . . 8 the plaintiff must show that the defendant, with

Chien v. Bumble Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2022

The Complaint alleges that much of this 21 information qualifies as “personal information” as defined by the California Consumer 22 Protection Act. (FAC ¶ 62; see also ECF No. 30-1 at 54.) … “Unless the parties clearly and 9 unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is 10 to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.” AT & T Techs., Inc. v.

Fouts v. Becerra

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 23, 2024

But those laws are too recent to establish an earlier 16 tradition of billy regulation, and reliance on these late 19th and 20th century laws cannot 17 bear the weight. … Bruen instructs clearly that “[b]ecause post-Civil War discussions of the 18 right to keep and bear arms ‘took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second 19 Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into

Yanez v. HL Welding, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 15, 2022

Defendant also contests many of the underlying wage and hour 11 violations, contending that its overtime pay practices were at all times lawful 12 and that per diem payments did not qualify as compensation on which … Cal. 2015) (“Generally, unless the settlement is clearly 6 inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to a lengthy and 7 expensive litigation with uncertain results.”). 8

Camarillo v. Balboa Thrift and Loan Association

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 4, 2021

In response, Defendant argues that FCRA’s claim necessarily implicates the 26 parties’ relationship because if Defendant qualifies as a creditor of Plaintiff, the FCRA 27 authorizes its act of pulling her credit report … An 19 arbitration provision expressly delegates such gateway issues to the arbitrator where “the 20 parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” AT & T Techs., Inc. v.

Victorino v. FCA US LLC

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

Thus, when weighed against the risk of 19 further litigation, the Settlement clearly falls within the range of reasonableness. … The Notice Administrator 11 shall establish the Settlement Website as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Choice Advisors, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 15, 2024

language of the MSRB Rule G-42, the Court disagrees with 19 the Defendants’ interpretation of what constitutes illegal fee-splitting arrangements. 20 Looking to the plain language of MSRB Rule G-42(e), the rule clearly … For example, the school clients were not fully able to consider 3 the implications of a lack of registration, including considering whether Defendants were 4 qualified to render services and exploring any possible legal