Case law

Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith

224 F. Supp. 3d 1022 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 1, 2016

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that this video was in fact posted by a Wakaya agent. However, at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs need not establish an agency relationship. … According to the FDA, high lead dosage products can cause serious damages to the central nervous system, kidneys, and immune system. (SAC ¶¶ 86, 87.)

M.J. v. La Maestra Family Clinic Inc.

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

La Maestra established a new department 12 offering chiropractic services in 2018. (Rodriguez Am. Decl. … to certain public health 11 entities, their employees, and qualified contractors receiving federal grants under 42 12 U.S.C. § 254(b). 42 U.S.C. § 233(a).

Hallak v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 18, 2023

The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1) 23 “The United States is immune from suit unless it consents to waive its sovereign 24 immunity.” Hodge v. … The burden of proof falls on the plaintiff store to establish by a 1 preponderance of the evidence that the violations did not occur.

Ortiz v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.

639 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 13, 2009

Bank suggests Plaintiffs’ TILA claim is not sufficiently related to the underlying mortgage debt so as to qualify as a recoupment. (Mot. at 6-7.) … First, it is not clear to this court that Plaintiffs’ loan qualifies as a “consumer credit sale or consumer lease.”

Apodaca v. Abrego

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

Whether Qualified Immunity applies to the Individual Defendants. 11 The threshold question a court considers when determining qualified immunity 12 is, taken in the light most favorable to the party … asserting injury, whether the 13 challenged conduct by the party asserting qualified immunity violated a constitutional 14 right.

Mora v. Black Horse Capital Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 21, 2025

“Where, by 12 contrast, a requested injunction would require the nonmovant to take affirmative action to 13 alter the status quo (i.e., a mandatory injunction), the movant must ‘establish that the law 14 and facts clearly … Thus, 20 Plaintiff fails to address, much less establish, any of the Winter factors.

Delino v. Platinum Community Bank

628 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, S.D. California · May 21, 2009

and conspicuously disclosing the right to rescind the transaction three days after delivery of the required disclosures, clearly and conspicuously disclosing how to exercise the right to rescind, clearly and conspicuously … disclosing the effects of rescission, and clearly and conspicuously disclosing the date the rescission period expired.

Leidle v. Bisignano

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 16, 2025

To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit 11 showing that the applicant cannot pay the fee and “still be able to provide himself and 12 dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. … Aug. 27, 2019). 21 Plaintiff’s IFP Application establishes that Plaintiff is receiving assistance from her 22 family. ECF No. 2 at 4.

United States v. Inzunna

303 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 5, 2004

The Government again submitted copies of the Title III materials as exhibits to its opposition to the instant motion. [3] Clearly, Title III cannot override a constitutional right. … Until a suppression hearing is held, or until their admissibility is otherwise established, the Court feels that the privacy interests of the defendants (who let us remember are presumed innocent) and the goal of Title III

Griffeth v. Detrich

448 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 1978

Each county may establish its own definition of the indigency level needed to qualify for General Relief. Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 17107. … In reality, the counties define just who it is who qualifies for a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to General Relief.

Nichols v. Logan

355 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2004

Thus, this Court rejects Plaintiffs argument that the precedent established in Booth does not apply to his case. See Opp’n at 6. 2. … In the SAC, Plaintiff clearly indicates an intent to sue all Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. See SAC at 1-2.

Farr v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 2019

Qualified Immunity 18 Defendants Hernandez and Ramrakha also argue they are entitled to qualified 19 immunity. See MSJ at 20–22. … of a constitutional right, and, if so, 4 whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged 5 misconduct.”)

Hart v. Larson

232 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 7, 2017

The Court finds Defendants failed to establish the requisite initial showing that Plaintiffs fraud claim arose out of protected activity. 1. … The Court finds the facts in GeneThera, Inc. are clearly distinguishable from Plaintiffs action.

Asher v. United States

28 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 4, 1939

The United States, by Section 15 of the Tucker Act, he urges, waived to a limited extent its immunity from cost liability, but it still retained its former latitude in collecting costs. … The statute clearly limits the costs recoverable by the “prevailing party”, regardless of whether that may be the private litigant or the United States.

Anthony

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

The party asserting 21 jurisdiction, here Plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter 22 jurisdiction. Ass’n. of Am. Med. Colls. v. … None of 18 Defendant Sanchez’s submissions qualify as such. The motions to strike are DENIED. 19 C.

Reel v. Johnson

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 8, 2023

“[G]overnment defendants have the burden 25 of establishing that they are entitled to immunity for an actual policy decision made by an 26 employee who ‘consciously balanc[ed] risks and advantages[.]’” … (quoting Johnson, 69 Cal. 2d at 794 n. 8). 3 Accordingly, “[i]t would be odd indeed if a plaintiff included in a Complaint allegations 4 that would establish a basis for finding discretionary act immunity on the part

Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. Norris

875 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 22, 2012

Consequently, accurate speech by a candidate’s political opponents does not qualify as a reprisal. And even if it did, it is not clearly tied to the proponent name disclosure requirement. … It does not clearly advocate for or against the election or defeat of either candidate. It communicates information about Breitfelder’s candidate positions regarding unions.

Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien

827 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, S.D. California · May 4, 1993

It clearly has value to plaintiffs, who use proceeds from the sale of these materials, as well as other materials, to support the operations of Scientology Churches world-wide. See McShane Decl., ¶ 12. … This is clearly not within the letter or spirit of the Congressional guidelines.

Lee v. Fuga

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 13, 2020

Specifically, Defendants 17 move on the grounds that their use of force was reasonable and that they are 18 entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.). … Similarly, 10 the court cannot find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 11 C.

Anderson v. Del Toro

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

that the United States has waived its sovereign 17 immunity. … Under sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit unless it 18 consents to be sued. McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir. 2008).