Case law

Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City and County of San Francisco

992 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 1998

Although Plaintiffs clearly anticipate that the Ordinance will have extraterritorial effects, for example, by inducing an airline to offer domestic partner benefits nationwide, these possible effects do not establish that … Employees whose domestic partners receive benefits under the stand-alone plans would qualify as participants of the plan.

Kun v. Mansdorf (In Re Woodcraft Studios, Inc.)

464 B.R. 1 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2011

Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that his retainer is immune from disgorgement based on state-law interpretations of his contract fails. Mr. Kun’s due process argument is likewise without merit. … Kun was not disinterested was not clearly erroneous.

McNeary-Calloway v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

863 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 26, 2012

Plaintiffs contend that this language “clearly” establishes that “settlement services include hazard insurance and other insurance ‘required by the lender as a condition of the loan.’ ” Id. … Therefore, to establish standing under the UCL a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury

Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc.

812 F. Supp. 2d 1022 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 30, 2010

Dist LEXIS 26098 at *12, 2002 WL 32126128 at *4, (N.D.Cal.2002) (Rule 11 establishes minimum level of detail required by Local Rule 3-1). … Moreover, the charts do not clearly indicate where data flows among the identified structures. See id. at 12 .

Schoenmann ex rel. Estate of UCBH Holdings, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance

7 F. Supp. 3d 1009 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2014

VIA Tech., Inc., 204 F.R.D. 450, 452 (N.D.Cal. 2001) (finding declaration of non-party was “clearly work product right up until the moment it was filed.”). … Rule 612 is inapplicable in this instance and none of the decisions the FDIC-Receiver have cited in support of its argument establish otherwise.

International Woodworkers of America, Local 6-64 v. McCloud River Lumber Co.

119 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 1964

These proposals involved the establishment of a Health and Welfare Plan and certain paid holidays. … At this point the qualified stipulation, referred to above, comes to an end/and the unqualified agreed státement of facts continues.

Schultz v. Leighton

325 F. Supp. 3d 1069 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 2017

A court shall grant summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at … As the Court has not found a constitutional violation, defendants' arguments regarding qualified immunity and failure to exhaust state administrative remedies will not be addressed.

Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.

608 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

Whether Sun Qualifies as a Direct Purchaser The direct purchaser rule is well-established. See, e.g., Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. 720 , 97 S.Ct. 2061 . … Based on all the foregoing, the court agrees with defendants that Sun does not qualify as a true direct purchaser for those claims based on DRAM purchases made by external manufacturers, and has furthermore failed to established

Johnson v. Smith

630 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 1986

. § 793 , which provides for the employment of qualified handicapped individuals by federal contractors. … Such conduct clearly was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Piva v. Xerox Corp.

70 F.R.D. 378 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 9, 1975

awards, a denial of class certification with respect to monetary relief at this stage in the proceedings for reasons of unmanageability would be premature and would, perhaps unnecessarily, provide defendant with a windfall immunity … It is clearly established, and is conceded by defendant, that the Agreement between the EEOC and defendant does not, as a matter of law, bar the instant action nor preclude certification of the proposed class.

Rohm v. Homer

367 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2005

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Defendants argue that Rohm’s pleadings fail to establish actionable racial harassment.

Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security

913 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 21, 2012

The burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see Celotex Corp. v. … In an analysis- of whether records fall within any of the harms listed in Exemption 7, a court first must determine whether the records qualify as “compiled for law enforcement purposes.”

Toussaint v. McCarthy

597 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 18, 1984

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e)(2), the Court shall accept the Monitor’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … Defective or clearly inadequate heating and ventilating equipment and broken windows shall be repaired or replaced promptly. 4.

Sahagun

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2026

The mental state required to 13 establish a deliberate indifference claim is well-established. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified 6 immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

People of State of California v. Lamson

12 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 1935

Powers, supra, was a case which clearly involved substantial denial of justice. … The procedure on appeal in habeas corpus is established by section 466, title 28, U.S.C.A., which provides that “no appeal to the circuit court of appeals shall be allowed unless the United States court by which the final

Tamalpais Union High School District v. D. W.

271 F. Supp. 3d 1152 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2017

However, as the ALJ noted, the record does not establish, and it is thus not undisputed, that 'Parents clearly understood the nature of the services being offered. … AR 000550 ¶34 (“[T]he evidence does not establish that parents clearly understood [the IEP].”); see also AR 000645-46 (D.W.’s father testified, with regard to the “individual” and “group” boxes checked on page 140 of the

Smith v. Lopez

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 2023

On September 29, 2020, 18 Plaintiff received correspondence from attorney Benjamin Pavone, which was clearly 19 marked “Legal Mail – Attorney/Client Privilege.” Id. at ¶ 20. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 12 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Norsworthy v. Beard

74 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

“[T]he exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applicable to prospective injunctive relief ... applies only to state officials with the ability to provide injunctive relief in their official capacities.” Roberts v. … The FAC does not allege that there was a genuine difference of medical opinion; rather, it alleges that Defendants’ purported reliance on the opinions of non-specialized, inexperienced health care providers was clearly unreasonable

Qwest Communications Corp. v. City of Berkeley

146 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2001

Trenching of 4,300 feet of a public right-of-way probably does not qualify as a “pro *1105 ject” to trigger CEQA. See Cal. Publ. Res. … The parties’ respective positions on these questions are now clearly established, and thus, a second hearing is not needed.

Herrera-Ramos v. Thich

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2025

20 and Thich harassed and threatened him when he attempted to report the excessive force incident which then chilled the exercise of his First 21 Amendment right, and such conduct by Defendants clearly … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot 23 be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.