AE Ex Rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “plausible facts supporting . . . a policy or custom could . . . cure[] the 12 deficiency in [a] Monell claim.”
• concluding that the plaintiff had not stated a Section 1983 claim because the plaintiff had 14 failed to plausibly allege that the County had a policy or custom
• concluding that the plaintiff had not stated a Section 1983 claim because the plaintiff had 11 failed to plausibly allege that the County had a policy or custom
• holding that a party forfeited an argument by failing to “‘specifically and distinctly’ argue the issue in his opening brief” (quoting United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992))
• concluding that the 11 district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend where the plaintiffs allegation of 12 || plausible facts could have cured the deficiency in his Section 1983 claim
• noting that Twombly and Iqbal 18 “appl[y] to Monell claims and should govern future pleadings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).