Case law

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.

Wood

District Court, N.D. California · May 4, 2023

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id., Ex. 4. 13 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”

Reybol v. California Department of Water Resources

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 2024

Reybol Does Not Assert or Establish Diversity Jurisdiction 24 Reybol does not assert diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. … If he does, he should identify any such law or more 8 clearly explain the basis for this action in an amended complaint. 9 Since Reybol’s Complaint neither demonstrates federal question jurisdiction under §

Bernstein v. Travelers Insurance

447 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2006

Under *1104 one of the quite possible answers, the discovery sought is much more clearly relevant. … sufficiently likely to be sufficiently useful (directly or indirectly) to the court and the parties in resolving the issues raised by Bernstein’s claim and by Travelers’ defenses to warrant the conclusion that the information qualifies

Franklin

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

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id., Ex. 4. 13 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”

Holmes v. California Army National Guard

920 F. Supp. 1510 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 1996

Plaintiff’s Federal Claims Are Not Barred By the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity Finally, the California defendants argue that the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s federal claims … The danger of such unchecked deference is clearly demonstrated by decisions such as Korematsu v.

Guy v. US Department of Justice

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 2021

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing personal 11 jurisdiction over the defendants in a lawsuit. Ranza v. … Because the purpose of Bivens is to deter the individual officer, the 1 Bivens remedy does not extend to damages actions against federal agencies, even where individual 2 officers are protected by qualified immunity

Miller v. United States

763 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 1991

All these actions qualify as collection activities under section 7433. … These assessments clearly contain demands for payment. 10 .

Jones v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 1, 2021

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify 13 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 14 A15. No.

Harrison v. County of Alameda

720 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 1989

Both Ninth Circuit precedent and California cases suggest that CCP § 340(3) qualifies as such a statute. … Clearly, after Wilson v.

Cooper v. Doe

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 2021

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify 13 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 14 A15. No.

Zandi-Dulabi v. Pacific Retirement Plans Inc.

828 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 1993

The Supreme Court has held that in drafting the ERISA statute, Congress intended to “completely preempt” state law regulation of qualified employee benefit plans. Id. at 66 , 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48 ; see also Sorosky v. … Moreover, a plan administrator does not act as an ERISA fiduciary in making decisions regarding establishment, amendment or termination of an employee benefits plan. Musto v.

Faulks v. Wells Fargo & Co.

231 F. Supp. 3d 387 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2017

Wells Fargo otherwise informed Plaintiff that he would likely qualify for a loan modification. 3. … Negligence “In order to establish negligence under California law, a plaintiff must establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Ileto v.

Conkle v. Jeong

853 F. Supp. 1160 · District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 1994

Clearly, this was not the first time Conkle’s back injury was brought to Local 1179’s attention, as Conkle had been on leave for quite some time. … Local 1179 persuasively argues that Conkle should not be permitted to “ ‘hide the ball’ by refusing to give [Local 1179] information establishing her grievance, and then sue [Local 1179] for failing to uncover that information

Chatman v. United States Steel Corp.

425 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 1977

Whatever the explanation, the evidence before the Court clearly suggests that a three position move-up is the exception rather than the rule at U.S. … Clearly, all employees in Chatman’s crew, whatever their race, were adversely affected by the foreman’s decision to work short-handed.

Stearns v. Google, Incorporated

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 2025

Thus, to 9 comply with Rule 8, a complaint should clearly and fully set forth “who is being sued, for what 10 relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” Id. … Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish federal question 1 California law. 2 California courts define negligence as a “failure to exercise the degree of care in a given 3 situation that a

Smith v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2021

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 22 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify 15 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 16 A15. No.

Owens v. Department of Treasury

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 6, 2021

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify 13 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 14 A15. No.

County of Santa Clara v. Trump

250 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 2017

Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[Sjettled constitutional law clearly establishes that [immigration detainers] must be deemed requests” because any other interpretation would render them unconstitutional under … JUSTICIABILITY The Government argues that the Counties’ claims against the Executive Order are not justiciable because the Counties cannot establish an injury-in-fact, which is necessary to establish standing, and because