Case law

Residential Energy Services Network, Inc. v. Building Science Institute, Ltd. Co., et al.

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

Nor 21 does BSI offer any authority that a previously abandoned trademark application would 22 qualify under those categories. (Id.; cf. … BSI has not met its burden to establish that the Court was “dead wrong” about 7 ||the agreement.

John Doe v. Regents of The University of California

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 16, 2024

; 21 (11) Eleventh Amendment Immunity; and (12) Reservation of Rights. … its eleventh affirmative defense 4 (Eleventh Amendment immunity).

Edwards v. Pollard

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

immunity. … immunity.

Mallen v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc.

861 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 22, 2012

We believe this to be temporary as some distribution agents held back purchases until we clearly explained our consolidated product strategy going forward. … that Defendant Health-point qualifies as a “seller” under § 12(a)(2).

Flagstar Bank, N.A. v. Santiago

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 31, 2023

The burden 6 of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction “rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.” 7 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. … For an action to 12 “arise under” federal law, as is asserted by Brooks in this case, “[a] right or immunity 13 created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential 14 one, of

Penton v. Kernan

528 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 20, 2007

C 211' and `HS 11350(a)' as a prior conviction of a felony," and therefore the qualifying priors are not clearly defined. (Doc. No. 21 at 27; Trav. at 24-31.) … The court did not arbitrarily impose an enhanced sentence on Petitioner, but instead relied on clearly defined qualifying priors.

Fanchon & Marco v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

100 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 17, 1951

Indeed, some of our large department stores have established branches to forestall competition. … “The alleged illegal conduct of petitioner, however, could not legalize the unlawful combination by respondents nor immunize them against liability to those they injured.” Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E.

United States v. Rodriguez

182 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 1960

Sec. 3238 is clearly authorized by Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution, supra. … “The Congress shall have Power * * To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization * * * ” Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 18.

Raiser v. San Diego County

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

immunity. … Thus, even if Plaintiff had convinced the Court of clear error as to reasonable suspicion, qualified immunity presented an additional hurdle that Plaintiff failed to surmount. 27

Maryland National Bank v. the Vessel Madam Chapel

821 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, S.D. California · May 19, 1993

That chain is established by producing bills of sale linking each subsequent purchaser to his predecessor, ultimately back to the manufacturer. … It therefore qualifies as “inequitable conduct”, requiring the bank’s mortgage to be subordinated to the mortgage and ownership interests of Mr. Jones and the Sparkmans under the doctrine of equitable subordination.

INTERNATIONAL GAMCO, INC. v. Multimedia Games, Inc.

732 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 11, 2010

The first and third factors are clearly met in this action and are not disputed by the parties. … Spiel-man qualified as an expert despite this lack of experience, Mr.

Associated Builders & Contractors of California Cooperation Committee, Inc. v. Becerra

231 F. Supp. 3d 810 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 27, 2017

It received employer payments that qualified for credit under section 1773.1(a)(9). (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff Interpipe Contracting, Inc. … And “the [Supreme] Court has clearly held that state legislation, which interferes with the economic forces that labor or management can employ in reaching agreements, is preempted by the NLRA because of its interference

United States v. Kellogg

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

Thus, by Plaintiff’s own allegations, such a prohibition 20 was clearly and publicly available prior to the filing of the complaint. 21 When “X” and “Y” are combined, the conclusion that fraud has been committed … Relator bears the burden of establishing 5 || that it qualifies as an original source. United Statesex re. Solis v. Millennium 6 || Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 445 F.Supp.3d 786, 795 (9th Cir. 2020)(citations omitted).

Williams v. Chau

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 16, 2020

Ct. at 20 1863 (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255). 21 At summary judgment, the Court may find that officials are shielded from liability 22 under the doctrine of qualified immunity … so long as their conduct does not violate clearly 23 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 24 known.

In Re Keane

110 B.R. 477 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 7, 1990

Keane cannot be allowed to conduct himself, in the flagrant manner established by this record, with impunity. … The record clearly establishes that Mr. Keane was aware of his obligations under the order. Mr. Keane submitted no convincing evidence that he was unable to comply with the terms of the order. 6.

Manlove v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 13, 2024

Of course, fashioning a novel variation of the 2 excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment would leave no question as to 3 whether qualified immunity applied. See Sandoval v. … Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 4 672 (9th Cir. 2021) (clearly established law is narrowly defined). 5

Hogg-Johnson v. Merz North America

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 19, 2020

Thi 2 || adverse reaction caused a “breakdown of her immunity” and required at least three 3 |jemergency room visits. Id. at 17. … First, the Court must determine whether 22 Federal Government . . . established requirements applicable to [the medical 23 || device].” Jd. at 321.

Ex Parte Stewart

47 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 1942

It utterly failed to mail him any notice that he had been found physically qualified for military service. It utterly failed to post notice of such fact on the classification list. … The opinion intimates clearly that, in cases arising under Selective Service, the jurisdiction of the district court to inquire into the legality of the Act is limited to habeas corpus. Opinion, page 891 of 124 F.2d.

Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.

723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 13, 2010

Ewell clearly has “sufficient relevant technical experience.” See id. Dr. … Accordingly, the Rosier and Monsorno drawings are insufficient to establish obviousness. 15 D.

Samayoa v. Ayers

649 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 9, 2009

Petitioner has failed to cite any clearly established Supreme Court precedent that supports the claim he advances here, and the claim fails on the merits. … Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state supreme court’s adjudication of this claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.