Case law

BURROUGHS OBO OPERATING ENG'RS LOC. U. v. Marr

559 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 8, 1982

I Section 501(a) of the LMRDA establishes the fiduciary duties that union officers and representatives owe to the union, and Section 501(b) provides union members with a qualified right of action to redress violations of … The injury to the union’s reputation alleged by plaintiff is clearly not an injury which would be cognizable under Section 501. Stelling, supra.

Lynch v. Kuster

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity 7 Defendants Martinez and Marquez also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A 8 court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged 9 the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established 10 such that

Hillery v. Procunier

364 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 1974

Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1971) the Court held that newsmen were not immune to grand jury solicitation of or information derived from the newsman’s confidential sources. … To the extent that Carothers can be read as qualifying otherwise broad First Amendment liberties in the prison context, this court agrees that, while the stricter standard applies, the State can generally illustrate a compelling

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

237 F.R.D. 618 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2006

PTO rules require that Stanford submit facts sufficient to establish that the initial omission of the two inventors was through error rather than deceptive intent. … The parties’ briefs do not clearly distinguish between attorney-client privilege and work product protection as they relate to the issue of subject matter waiver.

Lockheed Minority Solidarity Coalition v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.

406 F. Supp. 828 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 1976

Accumulated expertise may be a factor justifying a higher hourly rate, but it is clearly improper to make multipie charges for work that has only been done once. … While this range of charges may provide some guidance, it must be noted that the instant case hardly qualifies as “protracted litigation”.

Sonjhai Meggette v. Capital One Auto Finance, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2026

one’s 6 status as a Moor makes him or her a sovereign citizen who is immune from otherwise generally 7 applicable law.” … First, Plaintiff’s conclusory 19 allegation that she is a qualified person with a disability is insufficient. See Ashcroft v.

Laurence v. United States

851 F. Supp. 1445 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1994

Section 2680(a) of the FTCA specifically establishes the exception, providing that the United States does not waive its sovereign immunity for [a]ny claim ... based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise … Lee's assertion of the existence of a contract, and the nature of the ensuing relationship between EL & M and the government clearly evince an independent contractor relationship, notwithstanding that the relationship might

Gazaway

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 22, 2026

Title VII 15 Unless they consent to waive immunity, the United States and its agencies are immune 16 from suit. Ghannoum v. Wilkie, No. … Plaintiffs’ business cards are also insufficient to establish that NASA was Plaintiffs’ joint ] (E.D. Va. May 4, 2017), aff'd, 695 F.

SFCO

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2026

claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 13 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity 22 where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such 23 allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’

Scott v. Arnold

322 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 2018

Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. … The parties do not dispute that these two prerequisites are clearly established Supreme Court law.

Rancheria v. Salazar

881 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2012

But Butte County actually establishes the Decision’s adequacy. … The Decision clearly satisfies this standard, too. See Decision at 7.

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd.

655 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2009

Imported LFFPs of solely foreign provenance are not immunized from infringement of United States patents by the nature of their refurbishment. Jazz Photo, 264 F.3d at 1105 . In Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. … Read in full context, this court in Jazz stated that only LFFPs sold within the United States under a United States patent qualify for the repair defense under the exhaustion doctrine.

Sky Valley Ltd. Partnership v. ATX Sky Valley, Ltd.

93 Daily Journal DAR 12290 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 1993

It also is important to emphasize that the mode of analysis or the criteria for determining whether a party qualifies as a “client”, or has established that an “attorney-client relationship” existed between itself and a particular … These facts, while clearly relevant, are equally clearly not sufficient to establish that ATX was a client of Luce Forward for purposes of the joint client exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Hoskins v. BAYER CORP. AND BUS. SERVICES LONG TERM

564 F. Supp. 2d 1097 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 2008

Plaintiff first argues that the protocol used in the December 17, 2004 FCE, established by VerNova, Inc., is unreliable. … Consequently, plaintiff again fails to establish that defendant was self-dealing or otherwise acting in bad faith. *?

Matilton

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2026

and/or qualified immunity from 20 liability based on their good faith in the propriety of their actions and the reasonable 21 grounds for those beliefs, including the fact they did not violate any clearly established … immunity from liability on the ground that 6 any purported violation of any right was not clearly established; 7 AS AND FOR A FIFTY-NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE 8 DEFENSE, these answering defendants

Behne v. Microtouch Systems, Inc.

58 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 1999

Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), the decision of the United States Supreme Court establishing that in mixed motive cases, a plaintiff has no recovery where a defendant establishes that it had … The court explained that: Congress has clearly chosen to address illegal discrimination and wrongful retaliation separately and in distinct statutory sections.

Willner v. Manpower Inc.

35 F. Supp. 3d 1116 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2014

The plain language of section 203(a) clearly indicates that its penalties are limited to violations of sections 201.3(b)(4) and 201.3(b)(5). … Willner’s proposed construction of Section 226(e)(1) is unsound because it essentially excises the qualifier “knowing and intentional” from the statute; this contravenes the canon of statutory construction requiring that

Uribe v. Ponce

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 9, 2024

Compl. at 4. 9 The complaint contains a lengthy fact section, with numerous references to statutory and 10 constitutional violations, but the specific claims asserted against each defendant are not clearly … There are four tests to determine whether private entities or 12 individuals qualify as state actors: “(1) public function; (2) joint action; (3) governmental 13 compulsion or coercion; and (4) governmental nexus.”

Graves v. Blue Cross of California

688 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, N.D. California · May 25, 1988

BACKGROUND In early 1986, Graves was diagnosed as suffering from Lymphoma and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. At the time, he was covered by an ERISA-regulated group health insurance plan sponsored by his employer. … In view of this clearly stated legislative purpose, the Court concurs with the Goodrich court’s view that common sense not only supports a conclusion that section 790.03(h) regulates insurance, but would have to be disregarded

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Energy Administration

429 F. Supp. 1052 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 19, 1976

Yet, as indicated previously, though only dicta, TECA clearly expressed its view that Judge Zirpoli had certified what appeared to TECA to be “an insubstantial constitutional question.” … It is well established that administrative construction of applicable statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder are entitled to great weight. As the Supreme Court said in Power Reactor Development Co. v.