United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee Investment LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that California requires expert testimony on the standard of care unless 8 the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the 9 layman
• applying state substantive law to determine whether state agency 25 had exclusive authority to hear claims
• “Perhaps a better way of putting it is to say that one of the goals in deciding state law questions is to do no harm to state jurisprudence.”
• “District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery, and 6 [their] rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”
• “[T]he California Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions are ‘substantive’ provisions which, under Erie, a district court sitting in diversity is bound to follow.” (cleaned up)
• “District courts have wide latitude in controlling 17 discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).