Case law

Fay

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 6, 2026

Brown-Hunter v. 23 Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015). Rather, the reviewing court is “constrained to 24 review the reasons the ALJ asserts.” Id. (quoting Connett v. … See Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). 17 The ALJ has a duty to develop the record fully and fairly and to assure that the 18 claimant’s interests are considered. Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc.

Moore v. Pacific View Apartments Carlsbad LLC

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

Bernhardt v. 10 Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); see Barnett v. … See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); see also 17 James v. Lee, 485 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1251 (S.D. Cal. 2020). 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Hamilton v. Moseley

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 6, 2023

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn 14 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 15 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015). … See Brown v. Reif, 2019 WL 989874, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2 1, 2019) (denying appointment of counsel where the plaintiff’s filing demonstrated ability 3 to properly litigate case despite mental illness); Ordaz v.

Sekerke v. Hoodenpyle

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 16, 2019

Jones v. … Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Klat

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2025

Jensen v. Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025); Alden v. 22 Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712 (1999) (“We have . . . sometimes referred to the States’ immunity 23 from suit as ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity.’ … v.

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Ruiz

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 17, 2019

Camacho v. Bridgeport, 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 27 Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2001). … Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 5 1020 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Supreme Court has held in Marek v.

Venson v. Jackson

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 19, 2020

See Torbert v. Gore, 2016 WL 3460262, at 10 *2 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2016) (citation omitted); see also Armstrong v. … Stakey v. Stander, 2011 WL 887563, at *3 n.1 (D. Idaho Mar. 10, 2011); 19 see also Dixon v.

Mehboob Shah v. Desert Auto Group V LLC

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

Welcome Ctr. v. 19 Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150–51 (1984) (explaining that the Title VII statute of limitations 20 can be tolled in exceptional circumstances such as when a plaintiff is misled about a 21 deadline). … See Chaset v.

Esparza v. Kohls, Inc.

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

Corp. v. … “The Ninth Circuit’s decision stands for the 19 proposition that plaintiffs can state an economic injury for their misappropriated data.” 20 Brown v. Google LLC, No.: 4:20-cv-3664-YGR, 2023 WL 5029899, at *19 (N.D.

Chavez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

17 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 1, 1998

Plaintiffs rely upon Gerritsen v. … See Kreines v.

Ochoa v. Von Lintig

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 27, 2019

Ashcroft v. … v.

Chan v. Mayorkas

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

Id. at 836 (quoting Zadvydas v. 17 Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001)). … Kim v. Ashcroft, 7 No. 02CV1524-J (LAB), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30818, at *11–12 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2003) 8 (citing Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001); Fahim v. Ashcroft, 9 227 F.

Quidel Corporation v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 2019

Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 942 (9th Cir. 2007). Reliability 1 experience of his discipline.” Estate of Barabin, 740 F.3d at 462 (quoting Kumho 2 Tire Co., Ltd. v. … Kennedy v.

Buckley v. Gomez

36 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 1997

Ivey v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir.1992). D. … Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949 (2d Cir.1986); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir.1984). Plaintiff cites to Parratt v.

Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc.

166 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 23, 1958

In Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236 , 25 S.Ct. 637, 639 , 49 L.Ed. 1031 , the plaintiff collected stock quotations, which it furnished its customers. Said Mr. … American Potato Dryers, Inc., v. Peters, 4 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 165, 172 . 52 . Fowle v. Park, 1889, 131 U.S. 88, 97 , 9 S.Ct. 658 , 33 L.Ed. 67 ; Board of Trade of City of Chicago v.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schooler

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

Comm’n v. … Drilling & 8 Exploration Corp. v. Webster, 69 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1934). A receiver’s fees must 9 be reasonable. See In re San Vicente Med.

In Re Naturalization of Olan

257 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 15, 1966

Imhof, the Court takes judicial notice, is a high ranking official of the Austrian Government, representing its “Bundeswirtschaftskammer”, that is, Department of Commerce or Board of Trade, in the Western United States. … California Civil Code, Section 55; Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1, 9 , 16 P. 345 (1888) ; Kilburn v. Kilburn, 89 Cal. 46, 50 , 26 P. 636 (1891). 17 . Hawkins v.

Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 30, 2019

KATZ, and THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO 20 THERAPEUTICS, INC., 21 … Cal.2009) 12 (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Portillo v. City of National City

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 19, 2022

Ashcroft v. … Com’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 8 403 (1997) (referencing Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 689–92 9 (1978)).

Medicinova, Inc. v. Genzyme Corporation

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

Poster boards 25 would have sufficed.”). … Here, Defendant did not use poster boards at all, but PowerPoint presentations 17 alone, whereas in Affymetrix the plaintiff used both poster boards and a PowerPoint 18 presentation. See id.