Case law

Ballester v. Boucek

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2024

California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well 25 established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”) 26 (citations omitted); Franchesi v. … The Complaints go on to state “[t]his element 20 of Plaintiff’s claim is not in dispute, and you must find that this element has been 21 established.” (Id.)

Pulte Home Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co.

312 F. Supp. 3d 917 · District Court, S.D. California · May 16, 2018

Background This diversity action presents an insurance coverage dispute wherein Pulte asserts that it qualifies as an "additional insured" under several insurance policies issued by ASIC, and that TIG is now responsible for … The fact that ASIC could have drafted its ongoing operations exclusions more clearly does not automatically mean that the language it did choose is unclear.

Gutierrez v. Givens

989 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 16, 1998

If Plaintiffs’ allegations are taken as true, Defendants as a group were clearly involved in a complicated scheme to protect Givens’ assets. … Therefore, personal jurisdiction cannot be established under § 1965(b) at this time.

Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

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

(ECF No. 223 at 9.) 8 Because Plaintiff has not established that Dr. … Like other 3 qualified privileges, it may be waived.” United States v.

Greer v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2021

Code § 810.2. 10 Governmental immunity would therefore not bar a negligence claim against Dr. 11 Martinez. … A finding of specific intent entails a legal determination that the right at 5 issue be clearly delineated and a factual determination that the defendant acted with the 6 purpose of depriving the plaintiff of enjoyment

Kalter v. Keyfactor, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 7, 2022

As explained by the Echostar Satellite court, “the requirement 8 that Plaintiffs establish a prima facie case applies to the admissibility of evidence about 9 financial status, not its discoverability. … Cal. 2010) involved claims against 2 individual police officers for alleged excessive use of force, which “implicate[d] an 3 additional layer of liability analysis on the question of qualified immunity for

Sampson v. Welch

23 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 30, 1938

This transfer is clearly within the act. … In such transmutations, there clearly was a transfer of something to the wife clearly within the plain terms of the statute.

Martinez v. Welk Group, Inc.

907 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 30, 2012

To satisfy the damages element a plaintiff must show appreciable and actual damage, that are clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin. See St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. … Civ.Code § 3301 (“No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.”).

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

308 F.R.D. 649 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 24, 2015

[Doc. 435] Judge Curiel has clearly stated that all remaining pretrial dates are firm. … However, NU’s present counsel has provided no declaration establishing that these facts are true, and the Court finds it equally plausible that NU’s present request to substitute Mr.

Bisignano

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 13, 2026

Khan, M.D., who opined that there was insufficient evidence to 24 establish the presence of a mental impairment prior to Plaintiff’s date last insured. (AR 25 60–64, 66–-71.) … Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) 25 is not “clearly irreconcilable” with Meanel, and “Meanel therefore remains binding on this court with respect to proceedings before an ALJ.”). 26 2 The Supreme

Ballester v. Boucek

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2024

California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well 25 established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”) 26 (citations omitted); Franchesi v. … The Complaints go on to state “[t]his element 20 of Plaintiff’s claim is not in dispute, and you must find that this element has been 21 established.” (Id.)

Staniforth v. United States

District Court, S.D. California · May 24, 2024

Cal. 1986) (“The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign 1 immunity with respect to claims sounding in tort against the United States.”). … Id. 17 Indeed, California courts have applied the doctrine to delineate the duties of defendants 18 who are clearly not engaging in a recreational activity. See e.g., Nalwa v.

Griffin v. Hodges

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 13, 2023

Shakiba is entitled to summary judgment as to the 9 merits of Plaintiff's claim, it need not reach his alternative requests for judgment as to 10 || qualified immunity, see Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional 11 would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for 12 || further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); County of

Jeffries v. Olesen

121 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. California · May 13, 1954

favorably to the evidence is that the physician called by the Solicitor expressed an honest difference of opinion on a matter with respect to which any married layman, including plaintiff, is by actual experience presumably qualified … Pinkus, supra, "emphasize[s] the importance of limiting Postoffice Department orders to instances where actual fraud is clearly proved." 338 U.S. at page 277 , 70 S.Ct. at page 115. For here, as in Reilly v.

Alexander Anderson, Inc. v. Eastman

16 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 26, 1936

If either patent and any claim therein should be so classified, in my opinion, under the record made, infringement by defendants has been established. … The relation of the Eastman Oil Tool Company with any activity that could be regarded as infringement of complainant’s patent rights is not clearly established in the record, except that it is shown that defendant Eastman

Francisco v. Mohamad

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

need any further assessment,” and neglected the severity of his condition and decided 11 to refuse timely adequate medical care or spend funds on costly treatment as recommended 12 by the physical therapist in order to qualify … Mohamad only; or (2) file a Second Amended Complaint which cures the 11 ||deficiencies of pleading noted in this Order with respect to any or all other Defendants. 12 || Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint must be clearly

Acuna v. Godinez

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2022

Delatoore, 281 16 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 17 To qualify, section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to 18 submit a “certified copy of the … Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest 9 and most absolute of terms . . . prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment 10 right] to be free from sexual abuse…”).

Guerrero v. So

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 3, 2020

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 4 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 5 committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS 19 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 20 THIS ACTION; 21 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to

Roettker v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

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

12 Extrinsic evidence, or evidence beyond what was before the administrator, can be 13 considered “only under certain limited circumstances,” namely, “only when circumstances 14 clearly … That a defendant acted 8 both administrator and payer thus cannot qualify, on its own, as an ‘exceptional 9 circumstance’ under Opeta’s ‘restrictive’ rule.”).

Valdivia v. O'Malley

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

A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 18 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 19 defendant who is immune from such relief … Plaintiff clearly states her disagreement with the determination 3 ||made by the Social Security Administration by alleging that (1) “[t]he RFC specifically prohibits 4 || production rate pace, however, the ALJ found