Clear

1256 search results for query


Citation: 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068 | Docket No.: CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH
Status: Published | Citing: 35
Summary: 206 F. Supp. As noted, California's process does not provide for a preliminary revocation hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a parolee committed a parole violation. 2d 142 (1970); Owens v. Local No. 169, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir.1992). 2d 569 (1968); Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles, 607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir.1979), cert. Rule 56(e); see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n. 11, 106 S. Ct. 1348; First Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 289, 88 S. Ct. 1575; Strong v. Fran......read more.


Citation: 724 F. Supp. 2d 1086 | Docket No.: Case No. 91-0768-JAM-JFM
Status: Published | Citing: 19
Summary: 724 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (2010) UNITED STATES of America and State of California, Plaintiffs, v. IRON MOUNTAIN MINES and T.W. Arman, Defendants. # 1280) by Plaintiff the United States of America ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In 2002, this Court found Defendants to be a "partially responsible party" for the site contamination, and found them ......read more.


Citation: 823 F. Supp. 715 | Docket No.: CV-F-91-048 OWW
Status: Published | Citing: 79
Summary: 823 F. Supp. United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WANGER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court based on motions made by two sets of defendants named in Plaintiffs' "Second Amended Complaint For Equitable and Monetary Relief," filed on February 18, 1992. Westlands Water District ("Westlands") seeks ......read more.


Citation: 485 F. Supp. 2d 1172 | Docket No.: 2:06-cv-2013-GEB-EFB
Status: Published | Citing: 13
Summary: 485 F. Supp. Plaintiff alleges claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") against Defendant on behalf of herself and all other California consumers who have had credit card accounts with Defendant. Plaintiff's claims are based on Defendant's practice of increasing interest rates retroactively and without sufficient warning which she alleges violates California law. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. Co., 80 F.......read more.


Citation: 569 F. Supp. 1513 | Docket No.: CIV. S-83-287 RAR
Status: Published | Citing: 39
Summary: 569 F. Supp. FINDINGS OF FACT I The present action challenges the constitutionality of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 611, et seq. inasmuch as plaintiff contends that certain portions of the Act violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides in relevant part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech .... IV Section 2 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612, requires each "agent of a foreign principal," define......read more.


Citation: 623 F. Supp. 2d 1183 | Docket No.: CIV S-08-0066 FCD GGH
Status: Published | Citing: 19
Summary: 623 F. Supp. 56(c); see California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.1998). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2000). See Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir.1995). See Bliesner v. Communication Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of affidavits on summary judgment that were not based up......read more.


Citation: 456 F. Supp. 931 | Docket No.: Civ. No. R-77-0180 TJM
Status: Published | Citing: 21
Summary: 456 F. Supp. 931 (1978) SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. This opinion addresses the question of whether the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, plaintiff herein, as part of its case in chief against the defendant, United States, must carry the burden of proving that it was free of any contributory negligence. Southern Pacific brought this suit against the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.......read more.


Citation: 997 F. Supp. 1309 | Docket No.: CV-F-96-6354-REC/DLB
Status: Published | Citing: 18
Summary: 997 F. Supp. Plaintiff Bronco Wine Company ("Bronco" or "Plaintiff") moves for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to prevent the United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF" or "the Agency") from restricting the sale and distribution of its wines across the nation. In 1995, the same bottler applied for and received a total of eleven (11) COLAs from the BATF for Rutherford Vineyards' wine labels bearing "California"— what Bronco claims to be is the appe......read more.


Citation: 186 F. Supp. 2d 1099 | Docket No.: CIV.S-00-0506 WBS JFM, CIV.S-00-0613 WBS JFM, CIV.S-00-0779 WBS JFM, CIV.S-00-0875 WBS JFM
Status: Published | Citing: 37
Summary: 186 F. Supp. OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Harry LOW, in his capacity as the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, Defendant. The stated purpose of HVIRA is to ensure that insurance companies doing business in the State of California disclose to the state "any involvement they or their related companies may have had with insurance policies of Holocaust victims." After briefing and a hearing regarding various constitutional challenges to the statute, this court found, in June of......read more.


Citation: 799 F. Supp. 2d 1131 | Docket No.: 1:08-cv-856
Status: Published | Citing: 22
Summary: 799 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (2011) Lucio Corral RODRIGUEZ, individually and as Successor in Interest to the decedents, Maricruz Corral, Ivan Alexander Corral, and Lucio Anthony Corral, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; City of Modesto; City of Riverbank; State of California, Amtrak California; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway; and Does 1 to 200, Defendants. Plaintiff moves for (1) entry of judgment against Amtrak and the State of California and (2) accrual of interest from the date of filing of t......read more.


Citation: 719 F. Supp. 899 | Docket No.: CIV. S-89-529 LKK/EM
Status: Published | Citing: 63
Summary: 719 F. Supp. *900 *901 Gary F. Smith, Carole F. Grossman, Legal Services of N. Cal., Woodland, Cal., Jeanette L. Smith, Legal Center for the Elderly & Disabled, Sacramento, Cal., Gil Deford, Peter Komlos-Hrobsky, National Sr. Lyon v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 794, 796 (5th Cir.1986). The statute defines "income" for purposes of this determination to include money that is earned by the recipient by virtue of his or *902 her employment, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382a(a)(1) (West Supp.1989), as well as items of value, ......read more.


Citation: 180 F. Supp. 2d 1116 | Docket No.: CIV.S00-0334-WBS/DAD
Status: Published | Citing: 30
Summary: 180 F. Supp. Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. ("Baykeeper"), also known as Waterkeepers Northern California, sues defendant California Department of Boating and Waterways ("DBW") pursuant to the citizen's enforcement provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Clean Water Act" or "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. § 1365. The Regional Board has not yet made a determination regarding defendants' application, and DBW represents that it will not resume spraying until......read more.


Citation: 595 F. Supp. 1173 | Docket No.: Civ. S-83-1609 EJG
Status: Published | Citing: 77
Summary: 595 F. Supp. *1174 Carole F. Grossman, Yolo County Legal Center for the Elderly, Woodland, Cal., Bruce J. Hagel, Olson, Connelly & Hagel, Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiffs; Manuel A. Romero, Legal Services of Northern California, Yolo County Law Office, Woodland, Cal., Roberta Ranstrom, Sacramento, Cal., Peter Komlos-Hrobsky, Natl. Senior Citizens, Los Angeles, Cal., Eileen Sweeney, Natl. Senior Citizens, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that they and other class members similarly......read more.


Citation: 456 F. Supp. 2d 1141 | Docket No.: CIV S-05-0378 FCD/GGH
Status: Published | Citing: 38
Summary: 456 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (2006) Eric Edward JUELL, Plaintiff, v. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and David Williams, Defendants. defendants' Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Forest") and David Williams ("Williams") motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Plaintiff was hired by defendant Forest in June 1991 as a Territory Sales Representative. After approximately five years with Forest, plaintiff was promoted to the position of Manager of Specialty Markets (......read more.


Citation: 653 F. Supp. 2d 1057 | Docket No.: 2:05-cv-00518
Status: Published | Citing: 7
Summary: 653 F. Supp. On August 17, 2009, a hearing was held on Defendant Powerex Corp.'s ("Powerex") motion for a stay or dismissal of this action, based on the argument that the California Attorney General ("CAG") has recently caused all issues involved with Plaintiff California Department of Water Resources' ("CDWR") state claims in this federal district court case to be pending at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). Specifically, Powerex argues CDWR's three state claims in this federal......read more.


Citation: 422 F. Supp. 2d 1183 | Docket No.: 105CV011850WWSMS
Status: Published | Citing: 7
Summary: 422 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (2006) Sir Lee SHOALS, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (DOC. I. INTRODUCTION This lawsuit concerns an oral home improvement contract allegedly entered into by Plaintiff Sir, Lee Schoals and Daniel Rule,[1] a former employee of Defendant Home Depot, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Home Depot"). Before the court for deci......read more.


Citation: 697 F. Supp. 2d 1171 | Docket No.: Case No. 3:09-mj-0010 CMK
Status: Published | Citing: 20
Summary: 697 F. Supp. This case came on regularly for trial on May 19, 2009, and June 10, 2009, at the United States District Court in Redding, California, the Honorable Craig M. Kellison, United States Magistrate Judge, presiding; the United States Forest Service appeared by and through Rule 180 Prosecutor, Special Law Enforcement Officer, *1173 Michael Zunino, and the defendant, William J. Pepper, appeared, in propria persona. [4]United States v. Hall, 751 F. Supp. Section 228.8[5] Absent a finding tha......read more.


Citation: 428 F. Supp. 2d 1126 | Docket No.: CR S-05-0387 KJM
Status: Published | Citing: 27
Summary: 428 F. Supp. On January 26, 2006, this case came on for hearing on defendant Ronald Scott's motion to suppress two baggies, containing approximately .75 grams of marijuana, found on August 3, 2005 in the glove compartment of his vehicle and in a cigarette box located on the center console of the vehicle. When Officer Asarian arrived at the scene of the accident a few minutes later, he first noticed a vehicle overturned and located down an embankment. Officer Asarian and defendant then went down ......read more.


Citation: 29 F. Supp. 2d 657 | Docket No.: Cr. No. S-93-086 WBS. Civ. No. S-98-0165 WBS
Status: Published | Citing: 11
Summary: 29 F. Supp. United States v. Watts, 67 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1995). In this regard, the Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir.1996) is indistinguishable from this case. McMullen, 98 F.3d at 1158-59; United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 846 n. 5 (9th Cir.1996) ("[Petitioner] fails to explain what, if any, evidence or testimony he would present at such a hearing.


Citation: 785 F. Supp. 846 | Docket No.: CV-F-90-621 REC
Status: Published | Citing: 35
Summary: 785 F. Supp. The new claims and jury demand are based upon her assertion that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (hereinafter 1991 Act) or at least, Section 102 of that Act which adds 42 U.S.C. § 1981a providing for recovery of compensatory and punitive damages suffered as a result of intentional discrimination and a jury trial on those issues, is retroactive and should be applied to this case. Mojica v. Gannett, Co., 779 F. Supp. Lexis 499 (EDIL 1992); and Graham v. Bodine Electric Co., 782 F. Supp. ......read more.