Case law

I.M.A.G.E. v. Bolger

680 F. Supp. 1373 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 1987

Certain qualifying veterans were given preference points in addition to the points received on the exam. … Both sides agree that the seven class members here did not qualify for, nor did they receive, relief as a consequence of the grievance proceedings.

Guenther v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.

759 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 1990

Such a result would clearly contravene the purpose of section 11. … Thus, it is not necessary that a group be restricted by size in order to qualify as “limited” under section 552.

Del Prete v. Magellan Behavioral Health, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 3d 942 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2015

ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges that, through his spouse, he is a qualified beneficiary of Defendant Comcast’s Comprehensive Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, an employee benefit plan as defined by 29 U.S.C … In these judicial decisions, courts commented that Defendant Freedman had reached conclusions “arguably based on questionable grounds,” and that Freedman’s “extrapolation from [physician] notes” was “not clearly supported

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.

Marsh v. Ford Motor Company

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

If only a portion 8 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 9 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 10 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 18 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 19 appropriate markings in the margins).

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 §

Ramos v. Bank of America

779 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 15, 2011

The facts in Saffon are clearly distinguishable from the facts in this case. … Hadley dated January 24, 2005, stating that plaintiff “may qualify for permanent *1073 disability for her heart and lung condition.”

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.

Flinders v. State Bar of California

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 2022

Flinders bears the burden of establishing its existence. Kokkonen v. 2 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 3 III. … At the very least, there is a question whether the State Bar has met 18 its burden to establish Eleventh Immunity under the analytical framework discussed in Crowe. 19 But even if Eleventh Amendment immunity does not

Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates

345 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 1972

Unlike the state of the law on the basic issue of protectibility, the law of the Ninth Circuit on the test to be here applied is quite clearly stated in Benny v. … Nimmer, Copyright 1955, 43 Cal.L.R. 791 (1955), where the author notes at 794 that Aldous Huxley’s Point Counterpoint might possibly qualify. 10 . Rosemont Enterprises v.

Yeh v. Mayorkas

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2025

Dec. 16, 2015) (“[S]overeign immunity bars 13 FMLA suits by Title II employees.”) … Since “sovereign immunity is a 3 || jurisdictional issue, ... the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that there exists an applicable 4 waiver.” Berg, 2015 WL 9024622, at *7 (N.D. Cal.

In re Convergent Technologies Second Half 1984 Securities Litigation

122 F.R.D. 555 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 1988

Professors Wright and Miller do not attempt to resolve the tension between the right of the non-party witness and the clear intent of the drafters of Rule 26(b)(3) to make non-party witness statements immune from discovery … Sosnow’s statement might qualify as "past recollection recorded” seems, to put it mildly, strained. Apparently Mr. Sosnow did not make the statement in issue here until several years after the events to which it relates.

Cochran v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 2, 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.

Lindblad v. Bolanos

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 4, 2022

10 plaintiff can present no evidence that could overcome a defense of qualified immunity.” … as “use of force” 3 by police under the Fourth Amendment, a right to be free from such nonphysical interactions would 4 not be “clearly established” for purpose of overcoming qualified immunity.

Bennett v. Allstate Insurance

753 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 1990

That letter clearly indicated that the purpose of filing the complaint at that juncture was to garner the protection of the courts from “multiple, repetitious interrogations” of the insureds which, according to letter, had … The court specifically held that the alleged “relationship of trust and confidence” did not qualify as a “confidential or fiduciary relation, as those terms are used in the authorities.” Id.

Gutierrez v. Ilchert

702 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 19, 1988

Thus, the INS regulations, as they apply here, establish a two-step analysis for determining whether an alien should be paroled. … Clearly such a decision cannot be squared with Congress’ intent that IRCA be applied in a “liberal and generous fashion.” 2.

Thomas v. Internal Revenue Service

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.

Besig v. Friend

463 F. Supp. 1053 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 4, 1979

Thus, this case meets the first requirement for abstention established in Canton . … Certainly, this early opinion did not clearly set forth the standards governing the leasing of tidelands to private parties. 8 .

I.H. ex rel. Hunter v. Oakland School for the Arts

234 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 2017

Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 , 95 S.Ct. 449 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (mere state regulation of a private entity is insufficient to establish state action). … Cal. 2014) (“The plain meaning of the' word 'violence’ [in section 51.7] clearly involves some physical, destructive act.”) (alterations and citation omitted).

Richburg v. Department of the Treasury

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

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify 14 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 15 A15. No.