Case law

Musgrove v. Hanifin

District Court, S.D. California · May 12, 2021

The Court found Plaintiff’s requests for entry 9 of default and motions for default judgment must be denied because Plaintiff had not 10 established that he had properly served the Defendants and had not adequately supported … Otherwise Qualified for Program 2 A person is “otherwise qualified” under Section 504 if she “is able to meet all of a 3 program’s requirements in spite of” the disability.

McPhail v. First Command Financial Planning, Inc.

247 F.R.D. 598 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 30, 2007

“A motion to strike should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing of the subject of the litigation. … The first prong is “the *611 named representatives must appear able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel[.]” Lerwill v.

United States v. Saathoff

708 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 6, 2010

Congress spoke, but whether it spoke clearly enough is debatable. Compare United States v. … . -, 129 S.Ct. 1308 , 173 L.Ed.2d 645 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“Whether that terse amendment qualifies as speaking ‘more clearly’ or in any way lessens the vagueness and federalism concerns

In re De Gottardi

114 F. 328 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 20, 1902

Kighetti, do pay over and deliver to Edward Vollmer, the duly elected, qualified, and acting trustee of the estate of said bankrupts, within twenty-four hours after service hereof, the sum of $7,500 in money. … The explanation, of course, is clearly evasive, and a virtual admission of the correctness of the finding.

Vera v. O'KEEFE

791 F. Supp. 2d 959 · District Court, S.D. California · May 23, 2011

Here, Giles has at most shown that a narrower interpretation of § 632 is conceivable, but that is insufficient to establish ambiguity. See Smith v. … But clearly it is not a violation of § 632 for the mere audio or video recording of an event or interaction.

Taylor v. California Department of Corrections

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

In addition, the fact that Durr stabbed Plaintiff only three days 19 after Gonzalez moved Durr into Plaintiff’s cell establishes it is more likely than not the 20 threat Durr posed was either known or was obvious. … Appx. 601, 604 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying 9 || qualified immunity because “[b]y November 2009, it was clearly established in the Ninth 10 || Circuit that if any officer knew that an inmate was acting dangerously with cellmates

Guzman v. Berryhill

356 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 20, 2018

In finding that she did not qualify for those benefits, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that her diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder did not have any limitation on her ability to work. … In fact, because the Step Two inquiry is a "de minimis screening device used to dispose of groundless claims," an ALJ may reject a medically severe impairment only when that conclusion is "clearly established by medical evidence

United States v. Mobley

45 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1942

They show clearly that the intent of all was to construct a resort of some kind aimed to satisfy the needs of the Corlieu family or of those who seek pleasure in California forests. … To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.”

Kelly v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc.

291 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 4, 2017

Tecoma clearly stated Kelly could do her job without any risk of harm to self or others. (Doc 31-3 Ex. I: Doc. 31-3 Ex. L ¶ 1.) … Tecoma's responses to these other questions were meant to qualify her separate statement that Kelly's return to work should present no threat of harm to anyone.

Aguilar-Martin

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 30, 2026

qualify as a CIMT. … Penal Code § 273.5 7 do not categorically qualify as crimes of violence,” and “prior precedent holding that 8 § 273.5 is categorically a crime of violence . . . is clearly irreconcilable with the Supreme 9 Court’s opinion

Hernandez v. FCA US LLC

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

Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326 (2011). 8 Accordingly, to allege standing, Plaintiffs must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of 9 money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic … (Doc. no. 13 at 5; Compl. ¶47). 3 Stericycle is relying on the agent immunity defense.

Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.

198 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 1961

on, introduced either to establish unfair motive or to refute the existence of it. … We do hnow that the general principle of recognizing in carrier the clear right to establish certain physical standards that all employees must meet is well established * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.) .

Kennedy v. Harris

87 F.R.D. 372 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 1980

policy excluding IHSS payments from income was changed by an internal memorandum from the Secretary sometime in March of 1977; it was followed by notices sent to numerous recipients of SSI benefits that they could no longer qualify … The defendant argues that section 405(h) of the Social Security Act clearly establishes that 405(g) is the exclusive avenue for federal relief from denial of SSI benefits.

Musgrove v. Curiel

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

July 11 1, 2022) (“Unlike the judicial immunity available to state judges or state judicial officers 12 sued under Section 1983, a federal judge’s immunity is not limited to immunity from 13 damages and extends to actions … judicial 21 proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended to 22 judges.”

Edwards v. Bodkin

267 F. 1004 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 9, 1919

This was clearly a mistake of Law, and authorizes a review of the proceedings in a court of equity.” … Indeed, his actual home was in another county, where he qualified as a voter by swearing that he resided there. He states that he visited the land about every six months, staying only a few days at a time.

Edwards v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 2025

allege facts to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. 6 I. … Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). 25 Plaintiff clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home. See Silverman v. 26 United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).

Ashcroft v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

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

This is 16 sufficient[] . . . to establish a bona fide religious belief.” Doc. No. 29 at 8–9 (internal 17 citation omitted). … No. 29 at 10. 15 However, Plaintiff clearly does communicate that her “sincerely-held Christian beliefs 16 DO NOT ALLOW ME to have a biological substance injected into my body.

Roybal v. Davis

148 F. Supp. 3d 958 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 2, 2015

clearly established federal law. … Again, Petitioner fails to cite any clearly established law supporting his contention.

Hamilton v. Moseley

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

immunity, and dismissing 14 Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief as moot. … Nor has 26 Plaintiff established that he is unable to prosecute this action, and his filings reflect an 27 ability to articulate his claims clearly and cogently notwithstanding his anxiety and 28 arthritis

Ochikubo v. Bonesteel

60 F. Supp. 916 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 1, 1945

Then certainly there is qualified martial law to that extent, but to that extent only. … Clearly Executive Order 9066 and Law 503 contemplate and are designed to vest a vast power of decision in the Military Commander, but they also clearly contemplate that the power to enforce such decisions shall he limited