Case law

Sanai v. Kozinski

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2021

to the judicial process”). 15 More generally, courts have likewise found that courts considering disciplinary measures 16 for attorneys qualify for absolute immunity. … , while clearly improper, nevertheless does not 6 pierce the immunity extended to judges.’”

Nevin v. California

413 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 1976

However, Nevin has failed to establish any abridgment of the rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-l. … Blumstein, supra, the state clearly has an interest in regulating its franchise in this regard. See also, Blassman v. Markworth, 359 F.Supp. 1 (N.D.Ill.1973).

Donahue v. Butz

363 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 1973

United States,- 121 F.Supp. 906, 910 , 128 Ct.Cl. 617 (1954); (3) the government, as sovereign, is immune from this unconsented suit which, although nominally against the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, is in effect … On this record we are unable to find any Congressional recognition of any Karuk right to any clearly defined area of land within the Klamath National Forest or otherwise.

Lancaster v. United States Shoe Corp.

934 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 1996

for immunity from the doctrine of contra proferentem, but do give sufficient discretionary authority for the plan to be subject to abuse of discretion review. … The only reason clearly given by U.S.

Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 8, 2021

Ramachandran does not allege that Defendant Diaz acted 1 with the administrative code enforcement activities taken against his property, FAC ¶ 101, which 2 qualify as activity covered under prosecutorial immunity. … action, the Court finds that this factor does 24 not clearly counsel whether the two lawsuits are duplicative.

Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody

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

And because the County 14 officials are sued in their official capacity, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Garcia v. 15 Cnty. of Riverside, 817 F.3d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 2016) (official “may only assert qualified 16 immunity in his individual capacity, not his official capacity”).

United States v. Pangang Group Co.

879 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 2012

In order to obtain an Ll-A visa, a petitioner must establish, inter alia, that “the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying organizations.... ” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (i )(3)(i). … A “qualifying organization” is defined as “a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal entity which,” inter alia, “[m]eets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a parent

Conner v. Raver

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 2023

Connor argues that Raver can be held 23 individually liable and is not entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 11 at 12. 24 The parties’ arguments as to qualified immunity are irrelevant. … The complaint names 25 Raver in her official capacity, ECF No. 1 ¶ 8, and the defense of qualified immunity is 26 “unavailable” “[i]n an official-capacity action.” Kentucky v.

Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc.

871 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2012

Ober — thus belying any causal connection establishing retaliation. … Applying Jensen to the facts before the court here, it clearly compels the court to find in favor of defendant Edlin with respect to plaintiffs defamation claim.

Plastino v. Wells Fargo Bank

873 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 2012

In March 2011, representatives of Defendant “qualified Plaintiff over the telephone” for a loan modification. Id. ¶ 9. … On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff was again qualified for a loan modification over the phone and submitted all the required documentation. Id. ¶ 14.

Hasan v. Tigar

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2019

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–55 (1967) (judges 11 immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial discretion; immunity 12 extends to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see also Stump v. … of judicial immunity” is clearly contrary to well-established law. 18 Plaintiff also moves for the Court to order “its judicial officer” to provide financial 19 disclosure documents.

Laser Industries, Ltd. v. Reliant Technologies, Inc.

167 F.R.D. 417 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 1996

The breadth of these demands suggests that Reliant would be asking the court to examine a vety large volume of documents that would qualify for protection under the privilege unless Reliant were to establish the crime/fraud … These values clearly could be threatened here because it has not been disputed that the privilege applies to the communications in issue unless Reliant can establish the crime/fraud exception. .

Dinwiddie Construction Co. v. Department of Insurance

745 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, N.D. California · May 31, 1990

[If] the change is denominated ‘material’, the past experience shall be disregarded and the risk written at Manual rates until it qualifies anew for experience rating. C. Constitutional Claims 1. … Plaintiff’s substantive due process claim is not clearly articulated.

L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

114 F. Supp. 3d 852 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2015

. ¶ 42, are clearly the type of “exaggerated advertising” slogans upon which consumers would not reasonably rely. … To the extent Uber contends that our cases delineate a category of “aspirational statements” that are immune from liability under the false advertising laws, the Court rejects the argument.

Mirkovich v. Milnor

34 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 3, 1940

him the provisions of Section 1110 of the Fish and Game Code of the State of California, St. 1939, p. cxxxix-, on the ground that this section is violative of the due process, equal protection of laws and privileges and immunities … To inflict a forfeiture of a vessel on account of the misconduct of those on board, —treating the thing as liable to forfeiture, because the instrument of the offence is within established principles of legislation, which

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Railroad Commission

5 F. Supp. 878 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 1934

“The testimony of the Company on going value was put in by its vice-president and executive engineer, who qualified as haring had a general engineering experience prior to 1912 when he became valuation engineer and later … In its decision,’ under the subheading, “Value, Rate Base and Return,” the commission says: “During its entire history in establishing reasonable rates for utilities similar to this Company, to determine a proper rate base

Locke v. Schafer (In Re Schafer)

294 B.R. 126 · District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 2003

Following the establishment of the LLC, Schafer sought to transfer this line of credit to the LLC. … qualify.

Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc.

823 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 24, 2011

In accordance with Daubert , a proponent must establish that the witness’s un *1002 derlying theory or technique qualifies as reliable scientific knowledge. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 580 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . … Enyart was already using “was clearly the most effective accommodation that would work for her.” Id. ¶ 18. In addition, Ms. Enyart’s adapted reading system of JAWS and ZoomText is “clearly necessary for Ms.

Golden Gate Audobon Society, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

732 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 1989

Again, such research, directed to the specifics of the case, is clearly compen-sable. … The determination that the instant plaintiffs are prevailing parties is clearly consistent with Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. FERC.

State of California v. United States

46 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 1942

Little attention need be given the first argument advanced by the petitioners, namely, that their terminal operations are sovereign or governmental in character, hence are constitutionally immune from Federal control. … The order, insofar as it relates to free time, is clearly valid.