Case law

Mattox v. IRS

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.

JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2020

The Tribe clearly and unequivocally waived its sovereign 17 immunity with respect to the instant action. 18 D. … The Tribal Defendants counter that JW Gaming failed to establish this fact. Oppo.

Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. General Scanning, Inc.

97 Daily Journal DAR 14717 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 18, 1997

GSI also contends that most of the disclosures it made were immunized by the “community of interest” doctrine. … But clearly such a note would have probative value for the issue of what views reached the client.

(PC) Taylor v. Hammoudeh

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2022

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, 8 supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are 9 simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the 10 supervisors

Sims v. Duck (In Re FoodSource, Inc.)

130 B.R. 549 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 1991

occurred prior to the issuance of the bonds here at issue, and the fact of certain breaches of Duck’s trustee duties, for acts such as conversion, commingling, or failure to account and pay-over money in the estate, can be established … Therefore a code is generally presumed to have no altering ... effect upon the existing law, unless the intent is clearly expressed.” N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 23.14 (4th ed. 1985).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcroft

320 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 2004

Two of those four were also qualified as experts in maternal-fetal medicine, and one was qualified as an expert in medical literature. Three of the four were qualified as experts in pregnancy termination. … This court agrees that the issue of deference in this case is not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent.

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.

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.

Fox v. Uribe

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 15, 2019

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) 10 (establishing that deliberate indifference requires more than negligence). … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 13 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.

582 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2007

Furthermore, among the “places” enumerated in the DPA is entitlement to “advantages,” which clearly is not affixed to any particular physical location. … Taylor appears to have knowledge in this field, although without properly qualifying her as an expert, her testimony is inadmissible.

Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

803 F. Supp. 259 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 1992

There appears to be no distinction between the standard for establishing a right to punitive damages and the standard for establishing liability for disparate treatment. … In fact, his procedure was most clearly explained by defendant’s counsel during the cross-examination of Dr. Hoffman. R.T. at 33-5501-03. 28 .

Thrower v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

District Court, N.D. California · May 9, 2025

Injuries such as “mitigation costs and emotional distress . . . can only 7 qualify as concrete injuries in fact when they are based on a risk of harm that is either ‘certainly 8 impending’ or ‘substantial.’” … In addition, Thrower cannot demonstrate that the Florida Action was a “sham” because 11 there is clearly objective merit to the lawsuit against

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

Turner v. Dempster

569 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 1983

SUP contracts to supply qualified seamen to meet the manning requirements of the operators’ vessels. … The letter expressed the Department’s opinion that the three year restriction on the right of permit and probationary members to vote is “clearly unreasonable.”

Silverman

District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2018

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that 24 || the use of force was reasonable as matter of law and they are entitled to qualified 25 |} immunity. (Docket No. 21, hereafter “Mot.”) … immunity argument.

Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

82 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2015

Hendricks has been qualified as an expert witness in numerous cases involving those subjects. Pl.’s Opp. to Mot. to Strike 3-6, ECF 101. … The undisputed facts establish that Midland Funding merely holds debts and engages MCM to collect on those debts.

Ekdahl v. Ayers

621 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2008

Clearly Established Federal Law “Clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” refers to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time … that only the general principle can be regarded as “clearly established.”

Rejoice! Coffee Company, LLC. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 2021

“The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal 3 jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements,” which at the pleadings stage means 4 “clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating each element.” … However, an as-applied challenge is not 15 so immunized. MacKay, 188 Cal. App. 4th at 1450.

M.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2026

The Court cannot say that Dooley’s response was not clearly 4 unreasonable as a matter of law. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity 8 Defendants argue that Dooley is not a proper defendant because he “is immune from 9 liability under the Eleventh Amendment.” Mot. at 14:11–16:15.

Havea

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2026

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 against a defendant who is immune … The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 4 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).