Case law

Glesenkamp v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

71 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 1974

Plaintiff also argues that, even in-the absence of evidence in the form of affidavits or depositions, the legal definition of passenger so clearly covers boarding and alighting that amending the policy and denying her claim … Plaintiff contends that although this amendment will not qualify under Rule 15(c) for relation back, the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the fraud was discovered no earlier than February 26, 1973

Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

803 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2011

The threshold issue central to both claims is whether the Poles qualify as a point source subject to the Act. … These allegations, accepted as true, fail to establish a point source discharge actionable under the CWA.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

149 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2000

Doctors had been checking the “qualified” space even if the examinee failed components of the exam. This proved awkward for the company. UPS deleted the “qualified” and “not qualified” *1144 boxes in October 1996. … A clearly written protocol that required excellent acuity in one eye and at least some peripheral vision in the other would have, in the Court’s view, satisfied step one.

Card v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 2024

Furthermore, supervisor 6 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are “bald” or 7 “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal … Card also must provide names (or other identifying 16 information) as well as allegations that plausibly establish liability.

Ferreira-Dias v. Castillo

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2022

immunity. … If the four 7 officers searched the family home without a warrant in hand, they could be held liable and might 8 not be protected by qualified immunity. Cf. Groh v.

Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 2024

Mot. at 8. 6 As to any claim for damages, it is well established that “RFRA does not waive the federal 7 government’s sovereign immunity from damages.” … To establish equitable tolling, Plaintiff 22 “bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, 23 and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way.”

Sanchez Ex Rel. Hoebel v. Johnson

301 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2004

“Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’ ” Blessing v. … While § 30(A) benefits both recipients and providers of Title XIX services, the language of the statute does not clearly confer an enforceable right on either.

Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership v. United States

397 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 2005

The discretionary function exception to the FTCA “is a statutory reservation of sovereign immunity for a particular class of tort claims.” Gager v. United States, 149 F.3d 918, 920 (1998). … More fundamentally, however, Colorado is clearly distinguishable in that the Court premised its ruling on the fact that the party asserting the RCRA claim was a state, rather than a private party.

Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 2020

Despite the officers “physical custody” and “awareness of his troubled mental state” 13 the officers “failed to take any appropriate or necessary action in the face of a clearly paranoid and 14 suicidal detainee.” … Cty. of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 933 2 (1996), on which Defendants rely for the immunity argument, address the parameters of Section 3 846 immunity or suggest that it has the same scope as Section 845.8 immunity.

Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 1974

The promotion of self-interest alone does not invoke the rule of reason to immunize otherwise illegal conduct. … Plaintiffs Robert Dutra and Douglas Iinutson clearly acknowledged this market-established price ceiling. With respect to The Daily Review, Dutra testified: “Q.

Lynch v. California Public Utilities Commission

311 B.R. 798 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 2004

Appellate courts may reach such issues when, for instance, they involve questions of jurisdiction or sovereign immunity. See Ratonasen v. … It is well established that an individual’s status as a potential defendant in an adversary proceeding does not turn that individual into a “person aggrieved.”

Mills v. City of Palo Alto

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

Fabrication of Evidence 12 There is a “clearly established due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on 13 the basis of false evidence that was deliberately … Although prosecutors are entitled only to qualified immunity when they perform 20 investigatory or administrative functions, Buckley v.

Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 6, 2023

“When a magistrate judge rules on a non-dispositive 12 matter, a district judge may reconsider that ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to 13 law.” … See id. at 31 n.1 (“As Sachs relies only on the first clause to establish 22 jurisdiction over her suit, we limit our inquiry to that clause.”).

Gilton v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 29, 2023

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 5 It is possible that qualified immunity will ultimately shield the individual defendants from 6 || liability even if plaintiffs are able to assert a plausible claim. … or constitutional 9 || right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

Fisher v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

842 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1993

The Court was clearly concerned with plans that are administered as a unit, du Mortier, 805 F.Supp. at 819 . … the AICPA as an “employer” established and maintained the Plan. 2.

Scholl v. Mnuchin

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2020

First, subsection (a) establishes a tax credit for eligible individuals in the 23 amount of $1,200 ($2,400 if filing a joint return), plus $500 multiplied by the number of 24 qualifying children. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(a … A “waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally 21 expressed in statutory text,” and be “clearly evident from the language of the statute.” 22 FAA v.

Moss v. Uribe

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2020

Even if the violated right was clearly established, 18 qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when he decides that, even if constitutionally 19 deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified 8 immunity on this excessive force claim.

Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC

250 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 2017

As noted by Chrysler, other courts relying in Hasbrouck have clearly placed the burden of proof on plaintiffs. In Southwest Paper Company, LLC v. Hansol Paper, No. CV 12-8721, 2013 WL 11238487 , (C.D. Cal. … Id; (proposed-jury instruction provided “[i]f only large purchasers ... could, as a practical matter, qualify for the ... discount”). In upholding the instruction given by the Court, the.

Roe v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 19, 2024

“In the ADA context, a plaintiff may 10 establish injury in fact to pursue injunctive relief through evidence that the plaintiff encountered 11 an access barrier and either intends to return or is deterred from returning … Immunity 20 The City argues it is immune from liability from Plaintiffs’ negligence claim under 21 California Government Code Section 815 and Plaintiffs’ remaining

United States v. Alvies

112 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 1953

The reasoning behind its recommendation was stated thus: “ * * * It has been well established that membership in a religious organization is not necessary to sustain a conscientious objector claim. … For example, persons unable to demonstrate church membership as well as orthodox theological views, have found difficulty in obtaining exemption, although the statute clearly covers them.” And cf. United States v.