Kuehu v. United Airlines, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Madrid v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    1:21-cv-00352-SAB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See Cuestas v. Kijakazi, No. 5:20-CV-08746-EJD, 2022 WL 4591776, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2022) (“At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff has somatic symptom disorder, interstitial cystitis, chronic pain syndrome, morbid obesity, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder.”); Kuehu v. United Airlines, Inc., No. CV 16-00216 ACK-KJM, 2017 WL 2312475, at *4 (D. Haw. May 26, 2017) (“The LIRAB resolved conflicting evidence from various doctors and medical experts and determined that Plaintiff's condition is an undifferentiated somatoform disorder, not multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, or candidiasis.”); Michael Finch, Law and the Problem of Pain, 74 U. Cin. L. Rev. 285, 292 (2005)

  2. Coulson v. Kane (In re Price)

    589 B.R. 690 (D. Haw. 2018)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not preclude the plaintiff's federal claims because the federal action did not seek review of the state court's judgment

    Dannenberg v. Hawaii, 139 Haw. 39, 60, 383 P.3d 1177, 1198 (2016). Kuehu v. United Airlines, Inc., Civ. No. 16-00216 ACK-KJM, 2017 WL 2312475, at *4 (D. Hawai'i May 26, 2017) (some citations omitted). The first element of claim preclusion is not satisfied.