Case law

Ballester v. Boucek

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 8, 2024

California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well 20 established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”) 21 (citations omitted); Franchesi v. … Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding 22 Commissioner was immune “performing judge-like functions that were not clearly outside 23 the scope of his jurisdiction”) (quotations omitted); see also Ricotta v

Ballester v. Miller

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 8, 2024

California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well 20 established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”) 21 (citations omitted); Franchesi v. … Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding 22 Commissioner was immune “performing judge-like functions that were not clearly outside 23 the scope of his jurisdiction”) (quotations omitted); see also Ricotta v

Johnson v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · May 6, 2024

in any physical sense, the Court will consider the SAC to have incorporated 6 by reference (1) the Identities Declaration and its two exhibits (ECF Nos. 7, 7-1, 7-2); and 7 (2) exhibits attached to the FAC that are clearly … On this call, Kawano informed Plaintiff “he 11 had to apply for any and all benefits to which he was entitled in order to remain qualified 12 under Title XVI,” including early retirement benefits. Id.

Sundahl

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 15, 2026

Oct. 29, 2019) (“‘Plaintiff has not 3 alleged facts establishing a plausible claim’ because ‘he does not allege details establishing 4 any bad faith on [Defendants’] part.’”) (quoting Mountcastle v. … Apr. 2, 2025) (“The 15 Complaint does not clearly state whether Defendant[s] did or did not determine an error 16 occurred—and because of this deficiency, it does not clearly state a claim for relief under 17 § 1693f

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain

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

The CTCA represents a limited waiver 2 of this immunity. … See also id. at 978 (“Eleventh Amendment immunity may be waived only in 5 limited circumstances.

United States v. Anderson

45 F. Supp. 943 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 17, 1942

That clearly indicates there are two types of personal property referred to. The first one is a completed article. … It is unlimited by any qualifying phrase, and doubtless was used in its ordinary sense as interpreted in the various decisions of the federal and state eourts.

In re Pauline's Fashion Salon

121 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, S.D. California · May 17, 1954

However, any confusion as to the law on the subject, at least in the Ninth Circuit, is dispelled by the principles clearly set forth in the opinion of Chief Judge William Denman in Mason v. … There is ample authority also, for the rule that there must be established an actual partnership; that the mere “holding out” is insufficient. McClyman v.

Sedighi

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 28, 2026

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 4 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 5 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … All payments must be clearly identified 14 by the name and number assigned to this action. 15 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order by U.S.

Low v. Trump University, LLC

246 F. Supp. 3d 1295 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 31, 2017

The aggrieved class member must also establish redressability. … Plaintiffs qualify that the Settlement Administrator is continuing to process Claim Forms, (low, Dkt. No. 612 at 8; Cohen, Dkt. No. 301 at 8.)

Ward v. PAD Properties Group, LP

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 3, 2025

. § 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal if the complaint is 20 “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks 21 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from … Plaintiff is instructed to clearly identify the citizenship of each Defendant 15 in any amended complaint. 16

Buxbom v. City of Riverside

29 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 23, 1939

O., 1939, 59 S.Ct. 954 , 83 L.Ed. 1423 ; 59 Supreme Court Reporter 454, we may well start by setting down, generally, certain of the constitutional norms which these decisions establish. … So far as material to the discussion to follow, the boundaries of control of advertising or pamphlets are stated very clearly in Lovell v.

Page v. Tri-City Healthcare District

860 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 19, 2012

Davids clearly rejected lines of reasoning undermining this principle. … These cases provide persuasive support for the conclusion that the circumstances currently presented do not establish an injury sufficiently particularized to establish constitutional standing.

Eldridge v. Richfield Oil Corporation

247 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 18, 1965

It seems clear that this question, as one essential to jurisdiction, may be decided by the Court on motion without formal trial, even where a jury trial has been demanded. 5 It is likewise well established that, as in the … This public policy is clearly manifested in C.C.P.

Dorsey v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 2023

immunity. … Because 7 ||there is no evidence to support a medical indifference claim, the Court does g ||{not reach Defendant’s arguments concerning qualified immunity or 9 ||speculative damages. 10

Rose v. Seamless Financial Corp.

916 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 2, 2013

income was $9,600 ($7,800 from her pension and retirement and $1,800 a month in pension benefits) and forged her signature on the typewritten loan application documents to falsely state her monthly income to ensure she would qualify … Based on this case law, it is now well established that a designated broker is not personally liable for the acts of corporate employees based “solely” on his or her failure to supervise.

Valdez v. At & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1

371 F. Supp. 3d 754 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2019

The administrator concluded that the medical documentation did not establish why Plaintiff could not continue her sedentary job under the treatment plan. (AR 203). … Fonkem thus relied on more than one clearly erroneous finding of fact in determining Plaintiff was not disabled.

Dunn v. The Superior Court of San Diego County

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 19, 2025

In short, while 20 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 21 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. … Cal. 2017) (concluding plaintiff’s 9 claim fell outside of the parameters of Skinner where he was clearly was not challenging 10 the constitutionality or adequacy of California Penal Code § 1405). 11 For

Ramirez v. Windsor Care Center National City, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 9, 2022

Covered 19 countermeasures include “qualified pandemic or epidemic products” as well as approved 20 respiratory protective devices. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(i)(1). … Instead, when applicable, the PREP Act provides immunity to defendants on state law negligence claims.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Cammarata v. Kelly Capital, LLC

339 F. Supp. 3d 1033 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 2018

Tobacco companies that were signatories to the MSA were able to take tax deductions for their contributions to the escrow accounts because those accounts were designated as Qualified Settlement Funds ("QSF"). … Although this argument is not clearly articulated, it appears to be that because Plaintiff "learned in 2014 that [the Virginia Case] had been resolved against Kelly Capital" and thereafter issued the demand letters discussed

Jones v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 24, 2023

immunity. … See 15 || McCord, 2022 WL 2194984, at *3 (because the court concluded that the plaintiff had not 16 || established that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights, the court declined 17 || to address the qualified