Case law

Motekaitis v. USI Insurance Services National, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2025

establish its validity[.]” … As to MMA, Plaintiffs fail to state a legally cognizable claim 25 sufficient to overcome Section 230 immunity.

Bernstein v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 2021

Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1167 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is well 27 established, however, that § 1981 does not apply to claims of religious discrimination.”) … for acts done in 26 their official capacity.1 The doctrine of judicial immunity provides a “complete immunity from 27 1 suit, not just from

Simmons v. Koh

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2021

Ray, 386 U.S. 17 547, 553-54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the 18 immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, 19 … ); Zamora v. 22 Gonzalez, 15 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (affirming dismissal at screening of 23 complaint against defendants obviously entitled to qualified immunity).6 24

Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

574 F. Supp. 1453 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 24, 1983

On a policy level, this plenary examination would establish a dangerous precedent. A. … For example, clearly we should not immunize the Bank or its agents, simply because they have secured one or more favorable court decisions adjudicating their superior claim to certain assets in Honduras.

Gaddis v. Moseley

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 2022

Id. 6 Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations 7 against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” 8 establish the supervisors … C 22-cv-01680-DMR (PR)—on the form, clearly label the 18 complaint “Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form.

Slevin v. Home Depot

120 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 12, 2000

The term “other merchandise” clearly communicates that the flower displays are merchandise for sale. … The Ninth Circuit recently identified similar factors as shaping the analysis of whether a small business qualifies as a “modest retail establishment.”

Highbaugh v. City of Vallejo

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 26, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 16 In Pearson v. … at issue was clearly established at the time of 19 the defendant’s misconduct.” 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Petersen v. Clark

285 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 1968

The reply was a qualified “yes”. … Clearly a federal forum in the form of a constitutional court is denied to some potential litigants.

Chin v. Runnels

343 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2004

A fortiori, petitioner cannot demonstrate that the state courts refusal to adopt this erroneous requirement was an “unreasonable application” of “clearly established” Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). … This Court cannot conclude the state court decision denying Chin’s petition was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S.

Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC

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

Heyman is not qualified, in the first 9 instance, to make such a determination. However, their objection to Dr. … No. 69), for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that they have not met their 24 burden to establish that Dr.

Gaxiola v. Borla

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 10, 2023

entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, 17 supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them 18 are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the 19 supervisors

Coffey v. Ripple Labs Inc.

333 F. Supp. 3d 952 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2018

"The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. … Thus, if one part of the action qualifies under CAFA, the entire action may be removed. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Kelley v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

642 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 2009

This presumption can be reversed only if the law can clearly be shown to fit within the confines of paragraph (c). For these purposes, paragraph (c) is intended to be interpreted narrowly. … As the foregoing discussion has established, plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that they have any legal entitlement to relief.

Hartley

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 4, 2025

The fact that a pro se 18 litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel does not necessarily qualify plaintiff 19 to be appointed pro bono counsel. See Wilborn v. … Defendant is advised that summary judgment 2 cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. 3 7.

In Re: World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor

164 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2001

According to the plain text of the treaty, therefore, Korea and China do not qualify as "Allied Powers" subject to the waiver provision of Article 14(b). See Treaty at 3190. … In this regard, a district court in New Jersey addressing forced labor claims under the ATCA against Ford Motor Company recently concluded that "[t]he use of unpaid, forced labor during World War II violated clearly established

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education

District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 2022

26 was not objectively qualified. … selected was more qualified 19 2.

Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.

796 F. Supp. 2d 1025 · District Court, N.D. California · May 4, 2011

Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 , a reference may qualify as invalidating prior art on several grounds. … Fair, are not clearly defined and would not have been understood by a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention.

Frary v. Ahern

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 15, 2023

Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the 25 allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not 26 “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ … Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 There is nothing in the complaint that establishes Ahern’s personal knowledge or 3 involvement. 4 Gaston

Ellhamer v. Wilson

312 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 12, 1969

The evidence did not establish, and at this late date probably never could establish, why Baxter was not transferred one week earlier. … Krause’s testimony clearly establishes that the failure to compel the production of Baxter as a witness, even if his testimony were favorable, was a deliberate tactical decision.

Friends of Del Norte v. California Department of Transportation

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2020

“Legislative history 20 cannot supply a waiver that is not clearly evident from the language of the statute. … While sovereign immunity “must be ‘unequivocally 17 expressed,’” any “ambiguities in the statutory language are to be construed in favor of immunity, 18 so that the Government’s consent to be sued is never enlarged