Case law

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.

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.

Escamilla 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.

Rehan v. Department of Treasury 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. CH2M Hill Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 27, 2022

They refer to 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), which is a statutory 19 exception to the United States’ waiver of immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act. … record also indicated that “neither party contest[ed] that the cooperation 9 || agreement is a valid contract that Forward was entitled to terminate at will.” 7d. at 1138, 1140. 10 || The “at will” element is not clearly

Pittman

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 21, 2025

Pittman’s application to proceed in 6 forma pauperis establishes that he is unable to pay the Court’s filing fee due to a lack of 7 employment, savings, or other financial resources. … Pittman must show that Sitemetric—a 18 private corporation—“can qualify as a state actor.” Id. at 809. Mr.

Merritt-Rojas v. Life Moves

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 27, 2023

Similarly, Plaintiffs offer no facts to establish that Life Moves could fairly be 13 said to be a state actor. … Title II protects “a qualified individual with a disability.” Id.

Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2022

Because the Eleventh Amendment clearly bars this action 12 against DLSE, this Court does not address the other grounds. 13 A. … The FLSA establishes minimum wage, 18 overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards.

McCreary v. I.R.S.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 13, 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.

In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

283 B.R. 41 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 2002

entitled “Order and Judgment Disapproving Disclosure Statement; Rule 54(b) Certification” (bankruptcy order), which embodies a ruling issued on February 7, 2002, entitled “Memorandum Decision Regarding Preemption and Sovereign Immunity … It is clearly one of the largest bankruptcies in United States history, and definitely the largest involving a public utility.

Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 7, 2023

State Agency Defendants Have Not Waived Sovereign Immunity 1 immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, they have not waived that immunity, and 2 therefore the state constitutional privacy claim (the only claim brought … The court in ITSI addressed whether those defendants 12 could prove they qualified as “arms of the state.” ITSI, 3 F.3d at 1292.

Sam Sohn v. California Housing Financing Agency

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 27, 2021

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 22 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 23 defendant who is immune … That provision governs client assistance programs established by states receiving federal 18 funds. The provision does not appear applicable here. 19 8.