Case law

Nietzche v. Freedom Home Mortgage Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 8, 2019

collect on their own behalf do not qualify as debt collectors under the FDCPA); Schlegel v. … The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing sufficient service of process on Beneficial and BF1.

Cobb v. Intel Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2024

; “Do you qualify for the Rule of 75?”; and “I’d be looking forward to retirement if I were you.” Mahoney also asked Cobb, “Do you dye your hair?” … “Direct evidence typically consists of clearly sexist, racist, [ageist,] or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the employer.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005).

Kaplan v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2024

Defendants removed to federal court and answered the Complaint, alleging the affirmative defenses of comparative fault, qualified immunity, and the state-law damages cap. ECF 7. … Under this standard, a parent is not immune from tort liability solely based on the parent-child relationship, but certain conduct is privileged or not tortious.

Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 9, 2024

Engels’ testimony at the remand trial is clearly inconsistent with Plaintiff’s earlier position. Rather, Dr. … The Court sustained Plaintiff’s hearsay objection because Defendant could not establish that it was sent by someone with knowledge of the event(s) documented in the email. Mays v.

Johnson v. Coos County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

Joel Jensen, Wellpath’s Vice President for Information Technology replied that “there is a lot of scrutiny on email retention” and that the procedure should clearly state that mailboxes on legal hold would not be deleted … Id. at *7 (“The Court rejects the concept that Defendants are immune from dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) because they intended to destroy harmful ESI in all of their cases, rather than the harmful destruction

Armstrong v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2019

Third, despite the fact that throughout most of the relevant period plaintiff consistently reported passing six stools per day, the record clearly establishes that plaintiff often required twice as many trips to the bathroom … Accordingly, even if the lack of medical evidence qualified as a clear and convincing reason, it would not be sufficient because the other reasons the ALJ provided for discounting plaintiff’s symptom testimony are not

Lloyd v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 30, 2022

““Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance,’ or more clearly stated, ‘such relevant 5 - Opinion and Order : evidence … The ALJ may pose detailed hypothetical questions to the VE to establish what jobs, if any, the claimant can do. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1011 (9th Cir. 2014).

In re LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2021

First, the confidential witnesses whose statements are introduced to establish scienter must be described with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and personal knowledge. … Even assuming that these two companies are related, Plaintiffs do not allege even an inference that a qualifying transaction occurred between them. iv.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2022

First, Defendant argues that further proceedings are necessary “for the ALJ to clearly explain whether Listing 11.02 is met or equaled and why.” Def.’s Br. 4. … However, “allowing the ALJ to revisit the medical opinions and testimony that she rejected for legally insufficient reasons” does not qualify as a “useful purpose.”

Phillips v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2023

‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance,’ or more clearly stated, ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bray v. … Arnold Under the new regulations, a non-examining opinion is evidence the ALJ “must consider” because consultants are “highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)

Yela Fiduciary Services, LLC v. Benton County

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 14, 2022

“A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has ‘some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.’” … The party seeking spoliation sanctions bears the burden of establishing each element. Id.

Kiasantana, LLC v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 9, 2021

First, it is well established that a common-law right of access by property owners attaches to property as an interest in land. … Rather, the owner has a qualified right that is subject to the government’s interest in regulating the safe use of public thoroughfares.

Crawford

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2026

“Accordingly, unless [the] plaintiff’s relationship with [the] defendant qualifies as the type of ‘special relationship’ that gives rise to either duty alleged, no breach of duty can have occurred.” … In addition, to the extent ACA has now produced discovery that clearly contradicts any of Crawford’s “information and belief” allegations, as ACA suggests (Def.’s Reply at 19), Crawford will have an opportunity to update

Adams v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · May 16, 2022

The FTCA “was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual … Plaintiff must establish each of the following elements of negligence under Oregon law: a.

Degon v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 2021

Defendant conceded that Plaintiff did indeed suffer a burglary loss that does qualify for coverage under the Renters Policy and the VPP Policy if its misrepresentation defense is not established. … The Complaint clearly pleads the implied covenant claim as one for breach of contract. Id. at ¶¶ at 18–23. Plaintiff’s claim is not foreclosed by Oregon law.

Meritage Homeowners' Association v. The Bank of New York Mellon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2024

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the promissory notes as prima facie evidence of the existence of a debt, they do not clearly establish the amount of the debt. … Even on the face of the notes, they give a value of the note qualified by “or so much thereof as may from time to time be owing under this Promissory Note.”

Meyer v. Mittal

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 28, 2025

Even if the ability to pay an attorney fee award was a consideration under the SCA, Meyer has not established that he would be unable to pay any fee award. … Leslie’s Poolmart, Incorporated, the court questioned whether similarly specific time entries qualified as block billing because they “include[d] several tasks, [but] they [were] extremely specific and include[d] discrete

Jensen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2023

As a result, “an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when his [or her] conclusion is clearly established by medical evidence.” … Therefore, at the “de minimis” step two, the medical evidence does not clearly establish that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a medically severe impairment.

Unigestion Holding, S.A. v. UPM Technology, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 28, 2022

When an expert meets the threshold established by FRE 702, the expert may testify and the fact finder decides how much weight to give that testimony. Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565. … In addition, “[e]ntries in a police report based on an officer’s observation and knowledge may be admitted, but statements attributed to other persons are clearly hearsay, and inadmissible under

Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2021

Under CEQ regulations, agencies must prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for qualifying federal actions and/or the more intensive Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). … The regulations clearly except from NEPA’s requirements “[j]udicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(1), (1)(iv).