Case law

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

Delgado v. Yates

622 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2008

A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 . … The only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) is in the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of the state court decision.

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.

Patriot Contract Services v. United States

388 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2005

Injunctive relief will not be granted “unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399 , 1403 (9th Cir.1993). … or better-qualified personnel, which AMSEA has done here.

Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co.

61 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 19, 1999

The Morton Court therefore clearly contemplated that organizations had standing to sue on behalf of its members if their members could establish standing to sue. … In contrast, plaintiffs assert that their submissions clearly show that plaintiffs have established that PALCO’s discharges have affected plaintiffs’ members in a personalized and individual manner. Cf.

Enrico's Inc. v. Rice

551 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 24, 1982

The state regulation itself established the minimum markup which wholesalers’ and retailers’ prices were required to reflect. In addition to finding Parker v. … Clearly, Midcai did not eliminate the requirement of an agreement for a Section 1 violation.

Broussard v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 8, 2024

; 1 (3) “Vitamin C is an antioxidant that helps support a healthy immune system.”; 2 (4) “Vitamin C to support a healthy immune system.” 3 (collectively, the “Representations”). … This clearly distinguishes these labels from the one in 17 Plaintiffs’ cited authority, Krommenhock v.

Greencycle Paint, Inc. v. Paintcare, Inc.

250 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2017

Defendants knew that they were excluding an otherwise qualified recycler from the market. Id. ¶ 41 . … This is particularly true as Plaintiff has plausibly pled it had *450 done all Defendants asked of it to be qualified to receive paint for processing.

Walker v. Pierce

665 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 6, 1987

Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to establish a probability of success on this claim. 1 *837 Despite the fact that the plaintiffs have not established a probability of success on the merits of this claim, the court finds … Furthermore, the policy also qualifies as a “substantive rule” under the applicable Ninth Circuit precedents.

Aruanno v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2025

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id., Ex. 4. 14 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”

Finnie v. District No. 1-Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n

538 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 1981

Plaintiff, a qualified ship’s engineer and a longtime member of the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (the “Union”), was offered the position of chief engineer on the S/S Valerie F. … Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 79 S.Ct. 773 , 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), which preempts state court jurisdiction in cases where the exercise of such jurisdiction might threaten “interference with the clearly indicated policy of industrial

City of Oakland v. Holder

961 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 3, 2013

As a result, there is no waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity under the APA for Oakland’s action, mandating dismissal. Id. … The Government thus reasons that in either scenario the effect on Oakland would not qualify as irreparable harm.

STATE OF CAL. BY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM'N v. MacK

693 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 1988

To this end, the CZMA offers two primary incentives to states that establish qualified coastal zone management plans. First, the federal government provides financial assistance to the programs in the form of grants. … Clearly Congress realized that NOAA, through its control of federal financial assistance, would wield considerable influence over state coastal programs.

Mori v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Lodge No. 6

482 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 5, 1979

Those allegations are as follows: Plaintiffs are part of a class of members of Local 6 who have field construction cards and are qualified to work in the construction trade. … As plaintiffs contend, Section 101(a)(3) states clearly that dues payable to a local labor organization may be increased only according to the methods provided in Section 411(a)(3)(A), and not by the regular convention of

Gibbs v. United States

94 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 29, 1950

Footnoted is a chronological list of the statutes and their scope. 1 It is equally true that in none of the statutes by which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be *588 sued, is there any … On October 14, 1949, the Congress added subsection (b) to Section 7 of the FECA, 5 U.S.C.A. § 757 (b), and there provided specifically and clearly that the Act was the exclusive remedy of all employees of the United States

Hart v. County of Alameda

485 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 1979

The section therefore constitutes the establishment of a broad government policy that programs receiving Federal financial assistance shall be operated without discrimination on the basis of handicap.” S.Rep. … He is clearly within the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted.

Villalpando v. Transguard Insurance Co. of America

17 F. Supp. 3d 969 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 19, 2014

did not qualify for his own plan’s coverage. … Since the Agreements are also form contracts drafted by an entity with far more bargaining power than Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established procedural unconscionability.

Med. Diagnostic Labs., L. L.C. v. Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.

298 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2018

No similar factual foundation establishing a lack of reasonable relationship is alleged here. 4. … This is clearly reasonably related to the development and submission of information for the FDA approval process.

Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio

695 F. Supp. 1053 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 17, 1988

These allegations clearly lack the particularity required by Rule 9(b). … In the instant case, the defendant clearly owed to Columbus the duties of a fiduciary.

Kramer v. Peres

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 7, 2022

Furthermore, supervisor defendants are 8 entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or 9 “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ … Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 2 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.