Case law

Cloutier v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

964 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 1997

Nonetheless, the language and the legislative history of the statute makes clear that Congress did not intend for § 501(c) to confer blanket *303 immunity on insurers in every insurance-related decision. … In a nation with hundreds of thousands of HIV-positive citizens, clearly Prudential could find studies of some kind on the disease.

B. v. City of Oakland

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2022

In 15 the alternative, they argue that Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants do not address these claims or explain 25 how qualified immunity applies to them.

In Re Prohibition Against Disclosing ENE Communications to Settlement Judges

494 F. Supp. 2d 1097 · District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2007

There is no commentary to ADR Local Rule 7-5 that explains or limits the reach of the qualifying phrase “[ejxcept as provided by a case-specific order.” … In such situations there will have been relatively little formal development of the pertinent evidence and no occasion for the court to have established “the law of the case.”

Guancione v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 5, 2023

To 15 qualify for removal under the statute, an officer of the federal courts must raise a colorable federal 16 defense and establish that the suit is “for or relating to any act under color of office.” 28 U.S.C. § … Thus, Plaintiff has not 2 || established that this action should not be treated as one against the United States or that there has 3 || been an express waiver of sovereign immunity.

Boyd v. City of Oakland

458 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 17, 2006

Plaintiffs Exhibit B is entitled “Towed Vehicle Report,” which clearly lists the date as “23 Jul 02” and the time as “16:40.” See PL Opp. to SJ, Exhibit B. … rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Petrie v. Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.

982 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 1997

The case law, however, clearly shows that the Petries have no private right of action in enforcing the Exchange’s internal rules under the Act. … The Exchange also cites to several federal cases to support its argument that an arbitration organization's arbitral immunity precludes suits against the organization in connection with the administration of an arbitration

Joseph v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 2023

5 Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … immunity.

Dawson v. Napa County

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2025

Nov. 2, 2023) (“[T]he Court evaluates a motion to dismiss based on 12 Eleventh Amendment immunity under Rule 12(b)(6).”) 13 Having concluded Napa County Superior Court has sovereign immunity … In 2 general, “a single instance of unlawful conduct is insufficient to state a claim for municipal 3 liability under [S]ection 1983” though it may be sufficient “where fault and causation were clearly 4 traceable

Uptown Drug Co. v. CVS Caremark Corp.

962 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 22, 2013

Uptown must establish that Caremark’s use of that information exceeded the scope of use permitted under the Provider Agreement. … See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 14 (“Uptown Drug is a qualified provider under defendants’ various pharmacy benefit management programs.”); id. ¶ 27 ("In order to adjudicate the patient's claim, CVS Caremark requires that the retail

Mehr v. Féderation Internationale de Football Ass'n

115 F. Supp. 3d 1035 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2015

Club Soccer’s motion that it was “clearly an oversight” to fail to allege that Akka-Seidel was also suing U.S. Club Soccer. … To qualify as a party with standing to litigate, a plaintiff must- show injury in the form of “invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual and imminent,” and which is also “

Dignity Health v. California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 2020

Ex parte 8 Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity in response. … First, Plaintiff 5 asserts that “the phrase ‘for those employees’ only qualifies ‘paid time off policy’ and does not 6 qualify ‘paid sick days’ or ‘paid leave.’” Opp’n at 19.

J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC

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

This sufficiently meets the final prong, and Defendant qualifies for immunity under Section 25 230(c)(1) of the CDA. 26 Importantly, in 2018, the CDA was amended … Thus, Plaintiff’s citations to general statements in the legislative 11 history do not clearly support her position that state civil claims were intended to be carved out 12 from CDA immunity.

Bruce v. Azar

389 F. Supp. 3d 716 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2019

In early 2016, Plaintiff was diagnosed with lipodystrophy, an auto-immune disease, and wasting syndrome. Id. ¶ 12. To treat his conditions, his primary care physician prescribed the drug Serostim. Id. ¶ 13. … In contrast, there is no question that what Plaintiff is challenging here is clearly tied to his benefits.

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Uranex

451 F. Supp. 1044 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 9, 1977

In this litigation CP&L has established acts by affidavit, in large part uncontroverted by defendant, that are adequate to support jurisdiction to order the attachment. … This determination makes it unnecessary to resolve the contentions surrounding the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976, P.L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 , et seq. 8 .

Rodriguez v. Gigamon Inc.

325 F. Supp. 3d 1041 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 11, 2018

Burns' factual representations regarding Gigamon's existing "large deferred service," "healthy product backlog," and "consistent quarterly linearity" are clearly distinguishable from the "assumptions" regarding gynecology … The fact that Gigamon's financial results turned out differently from the guidance, however, does not establish that the guidance was false when made. See In re Rackable Sys., Inc. Sec.

Schaulis v. CTB/McGraw-Hill, Inc.

496 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 1980

The flaw with this contention is that the remarks of Letendre were clearly not directed to any one individual, and plaintiff certainly was not singled out for rebuke. … East Texas Motor Freight clearly mandates this conclusion.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. & Janet Napolitano v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. & Kirstjen Nielsen

298 F. Supp. 3d 1304 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 12, 2018

Thus, to qualify as a statement of policy two requirements must be satisfied: (1) the policy operates only prospectively, and (2) the policy does "not establish a binding norm," and is not "finally determinative of the issues … An agency's past practice of generally granting a government benefit is also insufficient to establish a legal entitlement. Ibid.

(PS) Lundstrom v. Contra Costa Health Services

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 29, 2022

Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17–20, 27, 43. 4 Lundstrom’s “regarded as” theory—that CCHS perceived her as “disabled with a 5 contagious disease,” and impaired immune and respiratory systems—fails … Indeed, the vaccine policy was established, as well as the consequences for 17 failing to comply[,] . . . before Plaintiffs submitted their [accommodation] requests.”); 18 Together Emps., 573 F.

Serv. Women's Action Network v. Mattis

352 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 29, 2018

Nor does the case at bar pertain to the admission of foreign nationals outside the United States; Trump dealt with the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals who traditionally have been understood to be "largely immune … In contrast, the case at bar concerns U.S. citizens and residents qualified to serve in our armed services, persons who enjoy the full measure of protection under the constitution. Yick Wo v.

Drevaleva v. Beeler

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2020

The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 4 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). … Thus, judicial immunity applies.