Case law

Feldman v. O' Malley

District Court, S.D. California · May 31, 2024

A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 15 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 16 defendant who is immune from such relief … Plaintiff states that he resides in San Diego County and that he became 23 disabled on December 1, 2020, but the complaint does not “state the nature of the plaintiff's 24 disability” or clearly state that this matter

Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.

264 F. Supp. 3d 1073 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 13, 2017

The present diversity action is an insurance coverage dispute ■ wherein Pulte asserts that it qualifies as an “additional insured” under several insurance policies issued by ASIC. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 8.) … A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 .

Goggin

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 30, 2025

Plaintiff therefore fails to 7 establish that he qualifies to proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. … Frivolous claims whose 23 “factual contentions are clearly baseless” include “claims describing fantastic or delusional 24 scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”

Stevenson v. Beard

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 8, 2022

immunity. … Because the Court has found that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to these claims, it need not reach 27 any issues regarding qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Pogue v. Ratelle

58 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 30, 1999

Judge Burns found that under clearly established federal law the prosecutors must fulfill the promises made in return for defendant’s guilty plea pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. … As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Petitioner that the federal constitutional law relevant to the reso *1151 lution of this issue was clearly established by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Santobello

Riddick v. Sony Electronics Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 9, 2024

Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have 10 been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary … Parties should not seek to file under seal 7 entire pleadings, or entire attachments, unless the party can establish that the entire 8 document satisfies the standard for sealing. 9

Diunugala v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

81 F. Supp. 3d 969 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 21, 2015

“The law firm sent a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) to [PJlaintiffs servicer, [DJefen-dant AHMSI.” Id. ¶ 72 . … In Alvarez , the court stated: Here, because defendants allegedly agreed to consider modification of the plaintiffs’ loans, the Biakanja factors clearly weigh in favor- of a duty.

Garot v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 4, 2025

Garot’s booking photograph clearly showed significant abrasions 3 on her forehead, medical staff at the county jail responded “No” on a screening form that 4 asked if the inmate had been recently hurt or injured. … immunity.

Coronado

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

dismiss 16 a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce 17 the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual 18 contentions are clearly … controlled by . . . mainframe computers at” various prisons). 9 “Because Plaintiff’s claims, like those in the cases cited above, are fanciful, 10 irrational, incredible, and appear delusional, they qualify

(PC) Gaither v. Williams.

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

)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 7 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 8 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … ALL PAYMENTS MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME 14 AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 15 3.

Fergins v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 20, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 6 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 17 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 18 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Imperial Irrigation District v. California Independent System Operator Corp.

146 F. Supp. 3d 1217 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 24, 2015

CAISO argues Otter Tail plays no role here because it is not arguing antitrust immunity. (Doc. No. 20 at 7-8.) … However, unlike Otter Tail, CAISO is not arguing immunity from the antitrust laws. (See Doc. No. 16-1 at 15-19; Doc. No. 20 at 7-8.)

Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC

819 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 19, 2011

Instead, they establish requirements which substantively impact a motor carrier’s routes and services. … While Congress has not established a bright line rule for determining what qualifies as a motor vehicle safety regulation, some courts’ rulings can give the Court guidance on this issue. Id.

United States v. Los Angeles Meat & Provision Drivers Union

196 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 30, 1961

These self-employed peddlers have no established place of business; no employees, except an occasional loader; no capital investment, except a small equity in a truck; no skill or special qualifications except the ability … Finding no purpose of Congress to immunize labor unions who aid and abet manufacturers and traders in violating the Sherman Act, we hold that the district court correctly concluded that the respondents had violated the Act

Payne v. San Diego Police Department

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 4, 2025

In short, while 20 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing fee 21 upfront, they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce 22 v. … All 2 || payments must be clearly identified by the name and case number assigned to this action; 3 3.

Swadener

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 20, 2026

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 13 Finally, dismissal is warranted when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief against an immune 14 defendant, as long as the court “has sufficient information to make a determination on 15 immunity … In any such amended 20 complaint, Plaintiff must clearly identify which causes of action are being asserted against 21 which Defendants. Gibson v.

Esteghalian v. Department of the Navy

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 26, 2021

“Although only one filing fee needs 22 to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff 23 must qualify for IFP status.” Anderson v. … Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990) (“It is well established . . . that before a 4 federal court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to invoke the 5 jurisdiction of the court must establish the

Vaughn v. Parker

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

Defendant argues there is no 6 evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant is entitled to qualified 7 immunity. … immunity.

Cluff v. United States Customs and Border Protection

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 14, 2021

“[A] nonfrivolous 14 allegation of jurisdiction generally suffices to establish jurisdiction upon initiation of a 15 case.” Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 137 S. … In this regard, federal employees are 11 accorded absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they 12 undertake in the course of their official duties. Wilson v.

Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc.

34 F. Supp. 3d 1117 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 21, 2014

Fifth, Plaintiff cannot establish her claim" for False Representation. Sixth, Plaintiff cannot establish her claim for Intentional Failure to Warn. Seventh, Plaintiff cannot establish entitlement to punitive damages. … Accordingly, Defendant must clearly establish that precise specifications required Defendant to provide its boiler to the Navy equipped with asbestos gaskets and an asbestos refractory and to provide and specify the use of