Case law

Grizzle v. San Diego, County of

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 18, 2022

of confinement claims. 18 Government officials have qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 19 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 20 … Thus, there is no need to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified 8 immunity based on clearly established law. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. 9 II.

Loera v. Saul

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

Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the filing fee and states a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). … “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 8 she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 9 civil action was commenced

Gomez v. Rossi Concrete, Inc.

270 F.R.D. 579 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 22, 2010

Therefore, Plaintiffs have established numerosity only for one of the proposed subclasses, the Plan 3 Subclass. 14 Because they have failed to establish that there are any members of the Plan 1 and 2 Subclasses, the Court … Regarding the requirement that Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel, Defendants do not oppose this point, and the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified and will represent Plaintiffs effectively

Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

immunity. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from 16 civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 17 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Carrillo v. Mission Valley Nordstrom Rack

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 30, 2023

In short, while 15 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 16 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. … Sua sponte pre-service 19 dismissal is also appropriate under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) “if the defense of qualified 20 immunity is established on the face of the complaint.”

Pinnock v. International House of Pancakes Franchisee

844 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 8, 1993

The Court held that application of the statute to an existing apartment facility which no longer qualified for mortgages under the new law did not contravene the Due Process Clause. … In contrast, the barrier removal requirements of title III clearly forward the stated objectives of the ADA.

Ostrander v. Dioces of San Diego Education & Welfare Corporation

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

Columba qualifies as a nonprofit public benefit corporation. … Columba’s Articles of Incorporation establish it is a religious 18 corporation as outlined in Gov’t Code § 12926(d). The Articles of Incorporation clearly 19 states that St.

Viasat Inc. v. Lloyd's

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

The party seeking to compel discovery bears the 18 burden of establishing that the requested discovery is relevant to a claim or defense, while 19 the party opposing discovery has the burden to show that the … Feb. 22, 2022) (“While a pending motion to dismiss does 15 not ordinarily warrant a stay of discovery, a stay may be appropriate where issues of 16 jurisdiction or immunity are raised in the dispositive motion

Cairns v. Quinn

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

LEGAL STANDARD 13 “It is well established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their 14 judicial acts.” Swift v. … Accordingly, Longstreth and Barragan are entitled to absolute judicial immunity 21 and absolute quasi-judicial immunity for their actions. See Haile v. Sawyer, 76 F.

Herman v. YELLOWPAGES. COM, LLC

780 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2011

AT & T Inc. pays no income, property or franchise taxes to California and is not registered, licensed or otherwise qualified to do business in California. Doc. # 36-3 (Threlkeld Deck) ¶¶ 5-17. … This Court notes the press releases clearly state that AT & T is a holding company and indicate the press releases were published by a subsidiary and not AT & T. See Doc. # 41-2, Exh. V.

Johnson v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 25, 2021

While the FTCA waived sovereign immunity claims for 1 certain torts committed by federal employees, constitutional tort claims are not 2 ||cognizable under the FTCA. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475. … Accordingly, the United States reasons, the claim is barred 5 the Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer that the FTCA did not waive sovereign 6 |/immunity for constitutional claims.

Jawad v. Barnhart

370 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, S.D. California · May 13, 2005

This choice of language clearly implies a national cost-of-living adjustment that coincides with the national cap on attorney’s fees. … The Ninth Circuit has established a three prong test to determine whether a special factor warrants a heightened fee award.

Mirabelli v. Olson

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

The EUSD defendants, or some of 8 them, may be entitled to qualified immunity after a motion for summary judgment or a 9 trial on the merits. … Without testimony on a full record, however, qualified immunity in 10 this case is unwarranted.

Meoli v. American Medical Service

287 B.R. 808 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 9, 2003

Exhibit 128 Is Also Subject to the Work-Product Doctrine The work-product doctrine is a qualified immunity which protects from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or that party’s representative in … Therefore, AMS-SD, through the bankruptcy trustee, has clearly also waived its work-product privilege with regard to Exhibit 128. C.

Royce v. Bonta

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 25, 2024

, or qualifies for other 24 exemptions recognized by statute. … are 21 such, that immunization is not considered safe.”

A.G.

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 2, 2026

A defendant’s conduct may qualify 8 as a “substantial factor” even if it is “one of multiple causes,” so long as it is “sufficient to 9 cause the alleged harm.” Union Pac., 43 Cal. … The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs 15 not established by a preponderance of the evidence that pepper spray caused their 16 |;}asthma.

Black v. Richfield Oil Corp.

41 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 25, 1941

The evidence clearly indicates that the trustee recognized the agreement and the conduct of the defendant corporation establishes that it too assumed the said licensing agreement had been affirmed by the court and that they … The parol evidence so admitted clearly established that it was the intention of the parties to include the omitted patent.

Pereira v. Saul

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

Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the initial filing fee and his complaint states a claim for relief. … “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 8 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 9 the civil action was commenced within

Reynolds v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 2, 2022

Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the initial filing fee, and her complaint states a claim for relief. … “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must 11 (1) “establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced

Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.

36 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 31, 1941

Heretofore, plaintiff has■ disclaimed claim 5 in its entirety and filed qualifying disclaimers involving claims 8, 9 and 10. … In my opinion this case comes clearly, within the rule laid down in Atlantic Works v.