Case law

WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2020

(quoting Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 587 (1943)). 16 At this second step, the court will grant immunity if “the ground of immunity is one which it 17 is the established policy of the [State Department] to recognize … Jacobs Eng’g Grp., Inc., 790 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Yearsley immunity is, in our opinion, closer in nature to qualified 24 immunity

Columbia Insurance v. Seescandy.Com

185 F.R.D. 573 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 8, 1999

Temporary Restraining Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or to that party’s attorney if (1) it clearly appears … See e.g., Wells Fargo, 556 F.2d at 430 n. 24 (stating that plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts).

Flournoy v. Haakenson

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2023

Legal Claims 6 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 7 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). … But all the alleged actions of 12 Judge Haakenson that plaintiff challenges are judicial in nature and there is no indication (despite 13 plaintiff’s protestations) that Judge Haakenson clearly lacked subject matter

Genentech, Inc. v. Insmed Incorporation

442 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2006

Defendants contend that there was no risk because pr e-EchoStar case law in this District immunized trial counsel from waiver. However, in Sharper Image Corp. v. … EchoStar does not clearly invalidate either case since, as stated above, it did not address the specific issue of waiver with respect to trial counsel.

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2020

Gov’t C. §§ 912.4, 945.4, and because SCCOE is entitled to 23 Eleventh Amendment immunity on that cause of action. Id. at 9-10, 14. … establish that Plaintiff sued Dewan in her official capacity.” 24 Dkt. 24 at 7.

In re the Gap Stores Securities Litigation

79 F.R.D. 283 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 1978

Plaintiffs alleged that the Board had established a fee schedule and sought to use the schedule and theories of “membership ratification” and “adherence” to establish a violation of Sherman 1. … Even then, plaintiffs attempting to certify defendant classes under Rule 23(b)(3) must demonstrate clearly that common questions do in fact predominate over individual questions.

Allstate Insurance v. Chaney

804 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 1992

Andrews, 915 F.2d 500 (9th Cir.1990), found that negligent misrepresentations made in conjunction with the sale of property did not qualify as an “accident” for insurance coverage purposes. … CONCLUSION Controlling case authorities clearly indicate that none of the claims asserted against the Chaneys in the underlying Mat-son action are covered by Allstate insurance policy no. 034116447.

Risby v. Hawley

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2024

The 13 rights, privileges and immunities that section 1985(3) vindicates must be found elsewhere. … Therefore, Plaintiff has not stated a RICO claim 18 for the purposes of establishing federal jurisdiction. 19 IV.

Nava

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2025

In its review, a court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal

Felix v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 2024

He must clearly allege the status of criminal proceedings in an amended complaint. 19 C. … Judicial 18 immunity is an immunity from suit for damages, not just from an ultimate assessment of 19 damages. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

King v. Pan American World Airways

166 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 1958

It is established that a suit may be brought in admiralty under the Death on the High Seas Act for a death resulting from the crash of an aircraft upon the high seas. Wilson v. … But, the present case clearly falls within the area where such application of a State compensation act is proper. The decedent was employed in a non-maritime industry and performed no maritime work.

Danh v. Demore

59 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 1999

[is] largely immune from judicial control,” Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. … In this vein, it has been said that an alien’s liberty interest is “significantly more qualified” than that of a criminal defendant. Doherty, 943 F.2d at 210 .

de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc.

56 F. Supp. 3d 1073 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 2014

Introduction CashCall makes high interest unsecured personal loans to qualifying consumers. Holland Deck, ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 173. … He clearly has personal knowledge of these matters. Cohen Decl, Ex. B at 407:1^08:4.

The Silverpalm

13 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 1935

This proof was held inadequate to establish privity, and it was held, further, in these cases that the evidence did not establish such a practice, but it would seem to have been recognized that the logbooks, had they been … In other words, either there is a personal fault on the part of the petitioner, or there is a ship that is unseaworthy because of lack of a qualified master.

Phœnix-Buttes Gold Mining Co. v. Winstead

226 F. 855 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 1914

'i o my mind the facts bring the case clearly within the principles an-non ¡iced in the cases of Lehigh Mining, etc., Co. v. Kelly, and Miller & Lux v. … East Side Canal Co.: *862 “We do not intend by wbat has been said to qualify tbe general rule, long established, that tbe jurisdiction of a Circuit Court, when based on diverse citizenship, cannot be questioned upon the ground

Kucharczyk v. Regents of the University of California

946 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 1996

The Court agrees that public entities do not enjoy immunity from liability based on contract. … The Court therefore will grant the University’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of tort immunity. IX.

Canon v. United States

111 F. Supp. 162 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 1953

By Section 1346 of 28 U.S.C.A., Federal Tort Claims Agí, the United States waives its sovereign immunity to suits for damages for personal injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the … The Johansen case, however, does not govern here as Johansen clearly sustained the injury for which suit was brought while in the performance of his duty.

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. United States

926 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1995

The SAA and the PVA do not themselves provide a cause of action against the United States; they simply waive sovereign immunity in admiralty suits where admiralty law provides a cause of action. Nelson v. … The court explained: It is well-established ... that disguised contract actions may not escape the CDA.

Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

291 F.R.D. 425 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 2013

Because Judge Ware concluded that “Plaintiffs ha[d] not produced a methodology for determining which categories of parts should qualify as inferior,” Judge Ware found that Plaintiffs “had not met them burden of establishing … The Court does not find that Plaintiffs have established that Judge Ware clearly erred when denying Plaintiffs leave to file a sixth amended complaint.

Garrison

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 7, 2026

He alleges “no one in Santa Clara Co. has a bar license [number] so it also 22 establish[es] PC 209 ‘Kidnapping for Ransom.’” (Id. at 2.) … A claim is frivolous if it is premised 16 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. Neitzke v. 17 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).