Fidel Angel Hernandez-Barrera v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not err by allowing an expert 19 to testify about industry standards even though the testimony referred to California’s Unfair 20 Settlement Claims Practices Act
• finding that 25 years’ experience evaluating claims, marketing 26 insurance products, and evaluating insurance policies sufficiently qualified an expert witness to 27 testify as to a bad faith claim
• explaining that because jurisdictional and 13 substantive issues were intertwined, the district court should have treated the motion to dismiss for 14 || lack of jurisdiction as a motion for summary judgment
• noting it is difficult for courts to decide qualified immunity at the 20 motion to dismiss stage because it forces the Court to decide “far-reaching constitution questions 21 on a nonexistent factual record,” and suggesting the issue is better left for summary judgment
• noting it is difficult for courts to decide qualified immunity at the 10 motion to dismiss stage because it forces the Court to decide “far-reaching constitution questions 11 on a nonexistent factual record,” and suggesting the issue is better left for summary judgment
• “[E]vidence showed that in thirteen out of thirteen cases involving 26 claims for total disability, Dr. Swartz rejected the insured’s claim that he or she was totally 27 disabled.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).