Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,050 results
0.41s
District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2022
His invocation was illegitimate, because the government had offered him immunity. … But County Court and Darden are far too general to make it “obvious that a clearly established rule applies” in this case. White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 427 (2014).
Cited 0 timesUnknownRejoice! 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2026
The Privacy Act defines “agency” as “any executive department, 10 military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other 11 establishment in the executive branch of the Government ( … Plaintiff is concerned 24 that Google will raise an immunity defense to her E-Government Act claim under Section 230 of 25 26 3 Plaintiff additionally
Cited 0 timesUnknown96 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 1999
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION GENERALLY Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc., Rule 23, plaintiffs burden of establishing a factual *972 basis for class certification is not a heavy-one. … Clearly, statutory monetary damages do not predominate. Actual damages consist' of the amount which class members paid above the face amount of each check.
Cited 26 timesPublished75 F. Supp. 3d 1076 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 2014
However, in order to establish that China is an “adequate” alternative forum in this case, defendants must establish that a Chinese court has personal jurisdiction over all of them and, more importantly, that all three defendants … clearly shown that there is personal jurisdiction over all defendants.
Cited 4 timesPublished935 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 2013
In opposition, Brazil contends that his allegations are clearly sufficient to plead standing. Opp’n at 12. … [Defendant’s] construction of § 360k would therefore have the perverse effect of granting complete immunity from design defect liability to an entire industry that, in the judgment of Congress, needed more stringent regulation
Cited 29 timesPublishedVietnam Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency
288 F.R.D. 192 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2012
However, in their opposition to that motion, Plaintiffs clearly asserted the constitutional basis for these claims. … Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim for medical care is in fact for money damages, not for equitable relief, and thus that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to this claim.
Cited 17 timesPublishedWebb v. Internal Revenue Service
District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 2022
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]?”
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Real Property & Improvements Located at 1840 Embarcadero
932 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 2013
is construed to authorize Claimants to enjoin criminal use of property that forms the basis of the underlying forfeiture action, the Court agrees with Harborside that when a CSA violation is alleged, only the Government qualifies … Procedure] Section 1161(4) to ask a California state court to find a lease terminated, and to issue a writ of possession, based solely on a tenant’s use of the premises to operate a medical marijuana dispensary if state law immunizes
Cited 2 timesPublishedLucky Dogs LLC v. City of Santa Rosa
913 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 21, 2012
And the Court held at. the September 9, 2011 hearing that Gornowicz had qualified immunity, leaving Santa Rosa as the only Defendant in the case. See 9/9/11 Transcript at 17. … For example, the Haas court explained that a county could either establish an office of county hearing officer or contract with the state Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative law judge.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2023
No. 11. 20 The amended complaint no longer includes defendants Bermudez and Johnson, it clearly 21 indicates that Mr. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 22 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2024
Mere negligence on the 4 part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s conduct 5 must have been wanton. … validly abrogated the States’ immunity as to Title II.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2022
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]?”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2023
Under California law, a plaintiff 27 bringing a defamation claim must establish: “(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and 1 v. … enforce the 11 UCL’s provisions, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property 12 sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeaver v. Department of Treasury
District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 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 … Id., Ex. 4. 13 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Sep 14, 2020
First, absolute immunity generally bars claims against prosecutors 14 in section 1983 suits. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 (1976) (applying prosecutor 15 absolute immunity to section 1983 suits). … April 16, 2009). 19 “Such a private right of action exists only if the language of the statute or its legislative history 20 clearly indicates the Legislature intended to create such a right to sue for damages.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2022
Gillott qualifies financially for IFP status. 5 The Court therefore will grant the IFP application. … Gillott could establish that the 6 $75,000 threshold is satisfied, the record indicates that all of the defendants are “permanent 7 residents of California.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCellNet Data Systems, Inc. v. Itron, Inc.
178 F.R.D. 529 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 1998
And that was pretty clearly what we set out to do. Q. (By Mr. Padmanabhan) I don’t think that quite answers my question. MR. … Moreover, the record clearly indicates that Mr.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2022
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]?”
Cited 0 timesUnknownRandle v. Internal Revenue Service
District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna