Factor cal

C. CAUSATION240.CausationAn act [or omission] causes (injury/ otherdescription>) if the (injury/ other description>) is thedirect, natural, and probable consequence of the act [or omission] andthe (injury/ other description>) would not havehappened without the act [or omission]. A natural and probableconsequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely tohappen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequenceis natural and probable, consider all the circumstances established by theevidence. if multiple potential causes.>[There may be more than one cause of (injury/ other description>). An act [or omission] causes (injury/ other description>), only if it is a substantial factor in causing the(injury/ other description>). A substantial factor ismore than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not have to be theonly factor that causes the (injury/ otherdescription>).]New January 2006; Revised February 2012, March 2024** Denotes changes only to bench notes and other commentaries.BENCH NOTESInstructional DutyIf causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximatecause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590-591 [35 Cal.Rptr.401]; People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866-874 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29P.3d 225].) The committee has addressed causation in those instructions where theissue is most likely to arise. If the particular facts of the case raise a causation issueand other instructions do not adequately cover the point, give this instruction.If there is evidence of multiple potential causes, the court should also give thebracketed paragraph. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 845-849 [111Cal.Rptr.2d 129, 29 P.3d 209]; People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43Cal.Rptr.2d 135].)AUTHORITY• Proximate Cause. People v. Carney (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1130, 1137-1139, 1143[310 Cal.Rptr.3d 685, 532 P.3d 696]; People v. Cervantes, supra, 26 Cal.4th at61pp. 866-874; People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 315-322 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d276, 826 P.2d 274].• Substantial Factor. People v. Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 845-849; Peoplev. Autry, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 363.• Independent Intervening Cause. People v. Cervantes, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp.866-874.• Causation Instructions. People v. Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 845-849;People v. Roberts, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 311-322; People v. Autry, supra, 37Cal.App.4th at p. 363.• Instructional Duty. People v. Bernhardt, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 590-591.• “Natural and Probable Consequences” Defined. See People v. Prettyman (1996)14 Cal.4th 248, 291 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013] (conc. & dis. opn. ofBrown, J.).• Act or Omission. People v. Cervantes, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 866.SECONDARY

Step 1 to set the CAL number. The maximum CAL number is 99,999. Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 14 9. Depress MODE (S1) switch once. The instrument will exit the Mode Selection Sequence and enter the normal operating mode (i.e. monitoring the input signal) This is the end of the PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONS. Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 15: Calibration Instructions CALIBRATION INSTRUCTIONS The Interface Model 9820 can be calibrated using (2) different methods. 1. The first method uses actual or simulated ZERO and FULL SCALE (FS) inputs. Actual inputs may come from a strain gage transducer loaded with calibrated weights. Simulated inputs may come from a strain gage bridge simulator. Page 16 9 and 11 are performed. TARING the display does not change the scale factor (slope value) calculated when Step 11 is completed. S3 has a 3 second delay feature to prevent inadvertent loss of calibration. Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 17 Example: If the RCAL resistor supplied with the instrument creates an output equivalent to 80% of a full scale 500 pound load, set the CAL NUMBER to 400.00, 0400.0 or 00400. Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 18 (slope value) calculated when Step 10 is completed. S3 has a 3 second delay feature to prevent the inadvertent loss of calibration. Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 19: Program Menu Diagram Depress Shifts Decimal Set dP Pt to the Left Depress RCAL Readout CAL Led Depress No Change & switch displays CAL turns on STEP Depress MODE OPERATE Interface Inc, www.interfaceforce.com 13-60 Rev. D 9820 Installation & User Manual... Page 20: Warranty Interface, which are

Postmates, AAA billed Postmates $4,689,600 in initial fees, and Postmates’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied. (See Postmates Inc. v. 10,356 Individuals (C.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2020, No. CV202783PSGJEMX) 2020 WL 1908302, at *4.)Armendariz factor #2:Providing for adequate discoveryThe Armendariz Court found that adequate discovery is indispensable for the vindication of FEHA claims: “The lack of adequate discovery in arbitration proceedings leads to the de facto frustration of the employee’s statutory rights.” (Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 104.) This same concept is applied to non-statutory wrongful termination claims. (Little. 29 Cal.4th at 1080.)Although subsequent cases have determined that “adequate discovery” does not mean “unfettered discovery” these agreements must “ensure minimum standards of fairness” so employees can vindicate their public rights. (Ibid.) Although the court in Armendariz recognized that a limitation on discovery is an important component of arbitration, employees are “at least entitled discovery sufficient to adequately arbitrate their statutory claims, including access to essential documents and witnesses,...” (Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 106.) Thus, because “arbitration is meant to be a streamlined procedure,” California courts have confirmed that parties may agree to limit the number of depositions and impose other restrictions. (Dotson v. Amgem, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 975, 984.) Nonetheless, “[a]lthough parties to an arbitration agreement may agree to limitations on discovery that is otherwise available under the Code of Civil Procedure, an arbitration agreement must nonetheless “‘ensure minimum standards of fairness’ so employees can vindicate their public rights.” (Baxter v. Genworth North America Corp. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 713, 727, quoting Fitz v. NCR Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 702, 716.)Courts consistently confirm that discovery limitations favor employers, who already have access to the majority of the documents and witnesses. (See Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 104.) “Employment disputes are factually complex, and their outcomes ‘are often determined by the testimony of multiple percipient witnesses, as well as written information about the disputed employment practice.’ [Citation.] Seemingly neutral limitations on discovery in employment disputes may be non-mutual in effect. This is because the employer already has in its possession many of the documents relevant to an employment discrimination case as well as having in its employ many of the relevant witnesses.” (Baxter, 16 Cal.App.5th at 727, quoting Fitz, 118 Cal.App.4th at 717.)“But while limitations on discovery are permissible in an arbitration agreement, California has made clear that a court must balance the ‘desirable simplicity’ of limiting discovery with employees’ need for discovery ‘sufficient to adequately arbitrate their statutory claim, including access to essential documents and witnesses, as determined by the arbitrator(s) and subject to limited judicial review.’” (Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co. (9th Cir. 2017) 846 F.3d 1251, 1270 (citing and quoting Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 106).)

Large pear.Dinner (474 cal, 13g carbs): Shrimp Cauliflower Fried Rice (1 serving), mixed greens (2 cups), Homemade Vinaigrette with Sesame & Ginger (1 serving), 1/2 avocado.Evening Snack (60 cal, 15g carbs): 1/2 cup Greek yogurt (nonfat, plain).Beyond the Plate: Additional Tips for Managing PCOSWhile diet plays a crucial role in managing PCOS, it’s not the only factor to consider. Here are a few additional tips to help you reclaim your health:Get Regular Exercise: Aim for at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week. Exercise can help improve insulin sensitivity, reduce stress, and promote weight loss.Manage Stress: Chronic stress can worsen PCOS symptoms. Find healthy ways to manage stress, such as yoga, meditation, or spending time in nature.Get Enough Sleep: Aim for 7-8 hours of quality sleep each night. Sleep deprivation can disrupt hormone balance and contribute to insulin resistance.Consider Supplements: Certain supplements, such as inositol and vitamin D, may be beneficial for women with PCOS. Talk to your doctor about whether supplements are right for you.Taking control of your PCOS journey starts with making informed choices about your diet and lifestyle. This 7-day low-carb meal plan is a great starting point, but remember, it’s a journey, not a race. Be kind to yourself, listen to your body, and don’t be afraid to make adjustments along the way. With dedication and perseverance, you can manage your PCOS symptoms, boost your overall health, and live a vibrant life.Remember: This meal plan is a suggestion, and it’s essential to

On undisputed facts.” (In re Spencer S. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1323; see In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888 [defendant’s challenge to a probation condition as constitutionally vague and overbroad presented a pure question of law that could be considered for the first time on review]; People v. Blanco (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172–1173 [whether to address the constitutionality of a statute for the first time on appeal is a discretionary determination for the reviewing court].) One factor that supports overlooking a forfeiture is when the belatedly raised issue “may return as a habeas corpus petition” (In re Spencer S., at p. 1323), which could occur here (see In re Jones (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 477, 480 [habeas petition challenging denial of resentencing under section 1170, former subdivision (d)(2)]). We also observe that section 1170, subdivision (d)(10), allows the filing of successive resentencing petitions, so Heard could conceivably raise his equal protection challenge in a later petition if we do not consider it now. So we will exercise our discretion to consider the merits of Heard’s equal protection claim. A. Heard Is Similarly Situated With the Juvenile Offenders Eligible to Seek Resentencing Under Section 1170, Subdivision (d)(1) “The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution both prohibit the denial of equal protection of the laws. ‘The equal protection guarantees of [both Constitutions] are substantially equivalent and analyzed in a similar fashion.’ ” (People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 674.) “The concept of equal protection recognizes that persons who are similarly situated with 24 respect to a law’s legitimate purposes must be treated equally.” (People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328.) When we are presented with an equal protection claim, we begin by considering whether the class of persons allegedly subjected to unequal treatment is similarly situated with the class of persons benefited by the challenged law. “ ‘ “The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.” [Citations.] This initial inquiry is not whether persons are similarly situated for all purposes, but “whether they are similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.” ’ ” (People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, 408 (Morales).) Indeed, “[t]here is always some difference