The court granted the parties’ joint motion to seal limited portions of competing trade-secret discovery motions, supporting declarations and exhibits, and trade-secret identification materials, finding good cause and a narrowly tailored request.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full, granted the habeas petition on claim one, ordered immediate release of the petitioner, and enjoined re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without seven days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing befor
The court entered default judgment for Google against NAO Tsargrad Media, declaring that Tsargrad breached Google’s Terms of Service and permanently restricting proceedings to enforce the resulting Russian judgment.
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone recommends denying Washington’s two renewed applications to proceed in forma pauperis because prior dismissals established three strikes and the complaint did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when this action was filed.
After counsel reported a settlement, the court dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice, allowing reopening for good cause within 30 days if the settlement is not consummated and stating that it retains full jurisdiction.
The court issued an order to show cause requiring plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and provide declarations on high-frequency litigant status under California law, with a response due by November 17, 2026.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice and without costs after being advised by counsel that the case had been settled, retaining jurisdiction for 30 days to reopen if the settlement is not consummated.
The Southern District of California dismissed Mario Patino’s § 1983 action without prejudice after he did not file a second amended complaint by June 15, 2026, despite extensions and an express warning that the action would be dismissed.
A magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI, finding the ALJ properly evaluated medical opinions and formulated an RFC supported by substantial e
The magistrate judge affirmed an order granting a pro se litigant an extension to oppose a summary judgment motion, finding excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1) based on the plaintiff’s emergency relocation and temporary lack of printing equipment.
The court ordered non-attorney Joseph Ogunrinu to show cause within seven days why the action he filed on behalf of three business entities should not be dismissed without prejudice, because corporations and other entities must be represented by licensed counsel in federal court.
The court granted an unopposed petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering the petitioner’s release within 24 hours and enjoining re-detention without individualized pre-deprivation notice and a hearing before a neutral arbiter.
The court denied the plaintiff’s petition for $10,000 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) because the operative contingency fee agreement only authorizes fees under § 406(a) and counsel did not respond to the court’s order to show authority for a § 406(b) award.
The court grants a pro se § 2241 petition, finding that a noncitizen detained for over a year after a final removal order must be released because a prior withholding of removal order makes removal to Mexico unlikely and the government offered no evidence to rebut the showing.
Judge Hernán D. Vera ordered Korttney Elliot to show cause within ten days why the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the complaint’s state-law claims and to submit sworn information bearing on high-frequency-litigant status.
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing within ten days why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, citing California’s heightened pleading standards and high-frequency litigant provisions as exceptional circumstances
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions but declined to issue a permanent injunction barring re-detention without a pre-detention hearing, ruling that the prospect of unlawful re-detention was too speculative; it granted the petition in part by ordering resto
The district court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after no required pretrial documents were filed, and it vacated the final pretrial conference and trial dates.
The court orders plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why his motion for default judgment should not be denied, finding that his California Anti-Spam Law claim is preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act because the email was not materially deceptive, and his Trap and Trace Law claim fails for lack o
The court dismissed Section 1983 claims against the Superior Court Executive Officer on Eleventh Amendment grounds because the Superior Court is an arm of the state and the plaintiff did not sue the defendant in his individual capacity or seek injunctive relief against him, and dismissed ADA claims
The court denied Marriott’s motion to stay discovery, finding that its pending motion was unlikely to dispose of the entire case and that leave to amend would likely be granted even if claims were dismissed.
The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged causation and deliberate indifference by Warden Santoro and supervisory Doe defendants based on documented patterns of violence and failure to follow mandatory CDCR policies, but dismissed the §1983 claim against Sergeant Lopez Vargas for insufficien
The court dismissed a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 action with prejudice after multiple opportunities to amend failed to cure deficiencies in his First Amendment retaliation and due process claims against a correctional officer.
The court denied plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, holding that his § 1053 anti-forfeiture claim relied on the same “reasonable actuarial assumptions” theory as his failed § 1055 actuarial equivalence claim, and the complaint’s allegations confirmed th