Cases

*1058 Opinion HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. John Doe and Jane Roe 1 were students at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), when they began a romantic relationship. A few months after their relationship ended, Jane made a

GILBERT, P. J. *46Due process - two preeminent words that are the lifeblood of our Constitution. Not a precise term, but most everyone knows when it is present and when it is not. It is often most conspicuous by its absence. Its primary characteristic is fairness. It is self-evident that a trial, an adjudication, or a hearing that may adversely af

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, No. 17-56110 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:15-cv-2478 SVW-JEM REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; SUZANNE PERKIN, in her official capacity,

519 U.S. 425 (1997) REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. DOE No. 95-1694. United States Supreme Court. Argued December 2, 1996. Decided February 19, 1997. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT *426 Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Ch

Filed 2/16/21; Certified for Publication 3/11/21 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RAMAKRISHNA AKELLA, H045886 (Santa Cruz County Petitioner and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 17CV03234) v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALI

Filed 3/26/21 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RAMAKRISHNA AKELLA, H045886 (Santa Cruz County Petitioner and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 17CV03234) v.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, No. 20-55831 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-10385- PSG-MRW REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; DOES, 1–20, Defendants-Appellees. OPINIO

Filed 6/7/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT JOHN DOE et al., B324717 Plaintiffs and Appellants, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 22STCP03412, v. 22STCP03416 & 22STCP03417 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent, LOS ANGEL

Filed 3/1/24 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE GOPAL BALAKRISHNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A164480 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct. No. RG19018682

Filed 11/29/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO RENEE THOMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A164550 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et Super. Ct. No. RG20073375) al., Defendants and Responden

Filed 6/24/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JOHN DOE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161546 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct. No. RG18888616) Defendant and Respondent;

Filed 9/30/21; Certified for publication 10/19/21 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JOHN DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A159023 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION In a thoughtful article in the Yale Law Journal, Catharine A. MacKinnon argues that the deliberate indifference standard in sexual assault cases under Title IX,' 20 U.S.C. § 1681, is inconsistent with Title *10

Filed 9/30/21; certified for publication 10/19/21 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JOHN DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A159004 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct.

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to The Regents of the University of California’s (“defendant” or “Regents”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt.12, “Motion”),

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff moves to remand this case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. The motion asks whether this, or any federal court, may exercise jurisdiction over this case which was filed in state court and asserts only state law claims for relief. For the reasons stated below, this Court denies the motion.

Filed 6/5/20; Certified for Publication 6/29/20 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX JOHN DOE, 2d Civil No. B293153 (Super. Ct. No. 16CV04758) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County) v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Res

Opinion McConnell, P. J. INTRODUCTION Daniel Berman appeals the judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate against the Regents of the University of California (Regents). He seeks to overturn a two-quarter suspension from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which was imposed on him for hitting another student

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2454 ISABELLE ARANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2454 ISABELLE ARANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo