Case law

Lovelady v. United States Customs and Border Protection

District Court, N.D. California · May 30, 2024

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states 7 that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, solely by reason of her or his 8 disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits … It is well-established that “[d]etention 16 and questioning during routine searches at the border are considered reasonable within the 17 meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v.

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.

Juricich v. County of San Mateo

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2020

Under subdivision (b), the County is immune from liability if, and only if, [the 13 employee] is immune.”) (quoting Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. … They argue that 6 the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that Juricich has a qualified disability and 7 that the underlying arrest was due to the nature of the purported disability.

(PC) Sekona v. Gutierrez

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

There are rare cases where 14 immunity may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 15 failure to state a claim, or where immunity is so obvious that the suit is frivolous … qualify as a strike under § 1915(g).

Geneva Ltd. Partners v. Kemp

779 F. Supp. 1237 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 27, 1990

To qualify for a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance … For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that although plaintiffs have raised arguably serious issues, they have failed to establish the probability of success on the merits of their suit, as required under the first

Maita Distributors, Inc. of San Mateo v. DBI Beverage Inc.

667 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2009

In any event, the court cannot, as a matter of statutory interpretation, read into the statute a right to cancel existing contracts that does not exist in the statute and is not clearly supported by the legislative history … DBI seeks summary adjudication that it qualifies as a proper “successor beer manufacturer’s designee” under Section 25000.2.

Oldoerp v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan

12 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 27, 2014

(circumstances must “clearly establish” that extrinsic evidence is necessary for an adequate de novo review). Accordingly, the Huser and Simoni reports are excluded as inadmissible. … As discussed in Section II above and the prior order dated November 25, 2013, however, Oldoerp’s SSA record is admissible here because circumstances clearly establish that it is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review

Williams v. Affinity Insurance Services, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2024

The Court is satisfied that 19 Defendants have met their burden to establish the terms of Plaintiff’s contracts with Carnival. See 20 Morgan Tire of Sacramento, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 F. … In this context, “affiliated or related” clearly connotes 13 a corporate relation rather than a mere business partnership.

Swain v. CACH, LLC

699 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Similarly, in Walker, the district court held that a plaintiffs claim based on an “estimate for proposed work” did not qualify him for UCL standing. Walker, 474 F.Supp.2d at 1173 . … This holding clearly is not applicable to the present case. 6 . See, e.g., White v.

Andrews

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2026

complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 18 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Similarly, a showing of nothing more 20 than a difference of medical opinion between medical professionals as to the need to pursue one 21 course of treatment over another is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish

Frary v. Atkinson

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2022

He names only one 13 defendant, Sheriff Gregory Ahern, but fails to state specific facts establishing that Ahern is 14 liable. … Furthermore, supervisor defendants are 25 entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or 26 “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Burwell

147 F. Supp. 3d 897 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 30, 2015

The regulation .clearly indicates that the binding effect of the treating physician’s determination of stabilization applies to Kaiser’s financial obligation. … Even if Kaiser could establish a property interest, there is no compulsion to participate in the Medicare program.

Hartman

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2026

Senator Cortese also argues that the 20 claims against him are barred because he is entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 8–10. 21 All Moving Defendants also move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). … Hartman 20 does not address the issue of state sovereign immunity, instead “ask[ing] this Court to disregard 21 and deny this erroneous FRCP 12(b)(1) erroneously based on the Affirmative Defense of 22 Sovereign Immunity

Lenci v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · May 5, 2020

, the United States and its agencies are immune from suit. … Thus, if 5 Lenci chooses to amend his complaint, he must establish that the government has waived its 6 sovereign immunity for any claim(s) he seeks to bring against it. 7

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Locke

771 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2011

The Ninth Circuit explained that “[t]he purpose of the Act is clearly to give conservation of fisheries priority over short-term economic interests.” Id. at 879 . … Keisler, 505 F.3d 913, 919-920 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency’s position not substantially justified if inconsistent with law that was “clearly established” at the time it acted); *1209 Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S.

Marks v. Davis

112 F. Supp. 3d 949 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 2015

A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established U.S. … This is so because Panetti was itself a post-AEDPA habeas case that merely explained the "clearly established law” of Ford v.

City and County of San Francisco v. United States

443 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 1977

The first two allegations, as a matter of law, are clearly insufficient to support a claim for a violation of NEPA. … The Ninth Circuit recently established in Ayala v.

Bratton v. Broomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2022

No. 16 at 3. 15 In the SAC, Plaintiff claims that he arrived at SQSP in July 2016, as an “ADA 16 qualified inmate/patient.” Dkt. No. 21 at 5. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 5 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

United States v. Ailemen

165 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 1996

The court clearly was interested in ascribing relative weight to competing considerations. … As we point out below, determining whether a given defendant qualifies for release under the Bail Reform Act is hardly an exact science. See infra § IV.

In Re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation

114 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2000

The official record of treaty negotiations establishes that a fundamental goal of the agreement was to settle the reparations issue once and for all. … See War Claims Act of 1948, 50 USC §§ 2001 -2017p (establishing War Claims Commission and assigning top priority to claims of former prisoners of war).