Case law

Tate v. Delgadillo

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 15, 2023

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-83 (2007) (police officer entitled to summary 20 judgment based on qualified immunity in light of video evidence capturing plaintiff’s 21 reckless driving in attempting to evade capture which … immunity argument.

In re Solarcity Corporation Securities Litigation

274 F. Supp. 3d 972 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 11, 2017

CW5 refers to not being able to “qualify,” but provides no information on what it means for a customer “to qualify,” and fails to describe’ which proportion of “low quality” contracts do not “qualify.” … However, statement B9 clearly stated that the FICO scores of customers had been dropping over time.

Baldwin

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

The court must 6 identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 8 … A plaintiff 27 accordingly bears the burden of establishing the existence of specific reasonable accommodations 1 accommodation must “‘honor the person’s choice [of reasonable accommodation], unless it can 2 demonstrate

Thompson v. IRS

District 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]?”

Mohebbi v. Khazen

50 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 23, 2014

Defendants point out that Plaintiff signed an Engagement Agreement which clearly stated that USIIC’s Regional Center status was pending, which would abrogate any reliance on the alleged prior statements. (Id.) … Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants advertised that they were a qualified EB-5 Regional Center.

Wilson v. Department of Treasury

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 8, 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 14 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 15 A15. No.

Deaver 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]?”

Kissner v. Loma Prieta Joint Union School District

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2023

Proximity is not enough to establish pretext. See Hooker v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 548 F. … It’s 22 clearly not even a consideration.

Randle 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.

Best v. Virgil Smith

District 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.

Equity Trust v. Gillott

District 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.

Reck v. Yellin

District 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]?”

Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency

302 F. Supp. 3d 1058 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2018

"When an examination of the plain language of the statute, its structure, and purpose clearly reveals congressional intent, our judicial inquiry is complete. … This purpose distinguishes TSCA cases from the ERISA cases relied upon by Defendant, where courts are presumptively limited to the administrative record unless the plaintiff clearly establishes a need for extra-record evidence

Lux

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 10, 2026

payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; 3 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 4 defendant who is immune … While the list of qualifying predicate acts includes the crime of 15 extortion, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), Mr. Lux appears to identify only one such act, involving Mr. 16 Bhin’s demand that Mr.

Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

673 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2009

Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are “lawfully made.” The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. … Counsel have an obligation to lay out their support clearly. In Carmen v.

In re Adobe Systems, Inc.

139 F.R.D. 150 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 1991

There, the court held that, in order to establish the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in a 10b-5 claim for inflating stock prices via deception, plaintiff need only show proof of purchase and that the misrepresentation … representation is merely whether or not plaintiffs have demonstrated a willingness and vigor to prosecute the action, whether they have any disabling conflicts going to the heart of the controversy, and whether they have qualified

Gonzales v. City of Martinez

638 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

The letter further informed Plaintiff that upon her written request, she could receive notifications of available positions for which she was qualified. (Id., Ex. 5.) … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she is disabled; (2) she is “otherwise qualified” for the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) she suffered

Wright v. Johnston

77 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 23, 1948

Conscientious counsel, as Allen is shown to be, so profoundly embarrassed,, was not qualified to give efficient representation to any of his clients. … No divergence of interest more clearly could have been "brought home to the court” than did the inculpatory statements of Attorney Allen’s three other clients.

Hulsey v. Mnuchin

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 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 16 for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?” The IRS responded: 17 A15. No.

Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 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]?”