Dawson v. Lewis

9 Citing cases

  1. Latin American Music Co. v. Ascap

    642 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2011)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a defendant in an infringement action may obtain fees and costs under section 505 despite not having registered a copyright

    Section 412 thus does not, logically, apply to alleged infringers. See OWell Novelty Co. v. Offenbacher, Inc., 225 F.3d 655, 2000 WL 1055108, at *7 (4th Cir. Aug.1, 2000) (unpublished table decision) (holding that section 412 "only applies to plaintiffs who assert copyright infringement claims and not to defendants who successfully defend against such claims"); Domingo Cambeiro Prof I Corp. v. Advent, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 262597, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar.7, 2000) (unpublished table decision) (affirming fee award to prevailing defendant; explaining that section 412 "does not apply to this case because there has been no finding of infringement"). See generally 4 Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 14.10[B][2] (rev. ed. 2010) ("[Section 412] does not speak to a finding of noninfringement.

  2. Spencer v. Hernandez

    1:23-cv-00397-ADA-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    In a different set of facts, the Ninth Circuit in a memorandum decision suggested a claim may be alleged. See, e.g., Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege facts showing deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs behind his back in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). Second, even if the Court finds the placement of the wheelchair on the hydraulic lift constituted an objectively serious condition, the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts from which the Court can infer that Defendant Hernandez acted with deliberate indifference or a callous disregard for Plaintiff's safety.

  3. Muhammad v. Casillas

    2:21-cv-0411 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Ninth Circuit has not yet found an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in the context of a correctional officer's failure to secure an inmate's seat belt during transport, but an unpublished memorandum decision suggests that such a claim may be alleged. See, e.g., Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege facts showing deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs behind his back in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).

  4. McClure v. Prisoner Transp. Servs. of Am.

    1:18-cv-00176-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2022)

    However, an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum decision has noted the possibility that such a claim may be cognizable. See, e.g., Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpub.) (“Although the district court concluded that Ford failed to allege facts to show that defendants knew of and consciously disregarded an obvious risk to his safety when transporting him in the vehicle with his hands cuffed behind his back, . . . he may be able to allege facts to show such deliberate indifference.”

  5. Robinson v. Zembrano

    Case No.: 3:20-cv-2106-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020)

    See e.g. Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 560 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming the denial of summary judgment where the "uncontested evidence indicates [a prison official] knew [prisoner] was shackled and restrained in a manner that prevented him from securing his own seatbelt . . . rejected [prisoner's] request for a seatbelt . . . [and] drove recklessly and ignored requests by the inmate passengers in his van for him to slow down." ); Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished memorandum) (recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints.). Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants were aware there was an excessive risk to his safety due to the manner in which he was restrained and transported.

  6. Thomas v. Rodriguez

    Case No.: 3:16-cv-02211-AJB-JMA (S.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2017)   Cited 6 times

    While the Ninth Circuit has yet to find an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in the context of a prison guard's failure to secure an inmate's seatbelt during transport, an unpublished memorandum decision notes the possibility that such a claim may be alleged. See, e.g., Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpub.) (

  7. Thomas v. Rodriguez

    Civil No. 16cv2211-AJB (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2017)

    The Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Rodriguez and Colio survive screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) because he has set forth factual allegations that they knew of and deliberately disregarded his need to be safely restrained in the back of the van for the trip to the hospital, and that he suffered a serious injury as a result.See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (holding that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights are violated when prison officials are deliberately indifferent to his need for safety); Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 560 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming the denial of summary judgment where the "uncontested evidence indicates [a prison official] knew [prisoner] was shackled and restrained in a manner that prevented him from securing his own seatbelt. . . . rejected [prisoner's] request for a seatbelt. . . . [and] drove recklessly and ignored requests by the inmate passengers in his van for him to slow down."); Ford v. Fletes, 211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 249124 at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished memorandum) (recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints).

  8. Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc.

    719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 32 times
    Finding that the fanciful coloring and nose and eyes features of plush toys serve an “aesthetic function” because the toys' aesthetic elements drive the consumer to buy the toy or not

    This limited interpretation of Apple Computers and its progeny is not warranted. See Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 845 (engaging in analytic dissection in a case unrelated to licensing); see also Domingo Cambeiro Professional Corp. v. Advent, 211 F.3d 1273 (Table), 2000 WL 262597, *4 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2000) (Unpub. Disp.) ("Although we have emphasized that analytic dissection is particularly helpful in the context of literary works, the extension of the extrinsic test to graphical user interfaces in Apple Computer refutes any claim that analytic dissection is inappropriate in the context of the graphic and visual arts").

  9. In re Sweitzer

    332 B.R. 614 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)

    " (citations omitted) Id. at 359. See also, In re Kaura, 211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.2000); In re Faber, 78 B.R. 934, 935 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1987).          In Shelley, it made perfect sense that "gross annual income" should mean gross receipts less costs of goods sold because the debtors operated a retail merchandising establishment conducted as a sole proprietorship.