Case law

Anderson v. Contra Costa County

District Court, N.D. California · May 12, 2022

These findings 3 are not clearly erroneous. The consensual questioning was permissible and did not prolong the 4 detention”). … Similarly, the Court need not address Plaintiff's argument on qualified 28 immunity. ECF No. 59 at 6-8. Defendants do not raise a qualified immunity argument in their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Hughes v. Apple, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 2 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 3 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

United States v. Freitas

610 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 14, 1985

The Storage Lockers The defendant asserts that even if the informant’s tips were sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause as to the Clearlake residence and Raymond Freitas’ home in Oakland, it was not established … Torres, 751 F.2d 875, 878-79 (7th Cir.1984), federal magistrates clearly do not.

Estate of Donald Nelson v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 14, 2021

Statutory Immunities 4 County Defendants cite several California statutes that they contend “immunize 5 both the County and its employees” from Plaintiffs’ state law claims. … Here, the alleged facts do 27 not establish that County Defendants acted with the requisite discretion to qualify for immunity 1 state a claim

Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC

467 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 4, 2006

NYM Co. of California, Inc., 595 F.2d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1979)) (“It is not necessary that a trademark be registered in order for it to qualify for protection under the Lanham Act.”). … Although the court declined to reach the issue on sovereign immunity grounds, the court noted that while a “grant of a service mark registration entitles the registrant to certain rights and privileges under the Trademark

Ridge v. Treasury Internal Revenue Service Austin

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 12, 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]?”

Monday v. Department of Treasury

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 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.

Moulder v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, IRS

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 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.

Stanford Daily v. Zurcher

353 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 1972

Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection ; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” ( 408 U.S. at p. 681 , 92 S.Ct. at p. … The affidavit, based mainly on hearsay, does not establish probable cause to believe that a subpoena was impractical.

Sanchez v. Department of the Treasury IRS

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 2021

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.

Board of Trustees of Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. J.N. Ceazan

559 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 1983

One challenging a Congressional statute on due process grounds must establish that there is no rational basis for the statute. Usery v. … Section 1401(d), therefore, is immune from procedural due process attack. Accord, Fur Mfg. Industry Retirement Fund v. Lazar-Wisotzky, 550 *1217 F.Supp. 35; Shelter Framing Corp. v.

Lam v. City & County of San Francisco

868 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2012

Indeed, the facts tend to establish that those non-APA employees who secured interviews, and were then promoted, were able to do so because they were more qualified than Chin — based on the written take home test. … Thus, Lam’s refusal to review materials with Radogno was clearly established, and his resulting admonishment was legitimate and non-discriminatory, in the absence of any evidence of pretext.

Sharp v. Koskinen

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 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.

Scott v. Yellen

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 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.

In re Oracle Securities Litigation

131 F.R.D. 688 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 1990

Yet the former outcome is clearly of. greater value to the class. 6 Nevertheless, reliance on hindsight does not make a fee award less subject to criticism. … Here, more than 25 law firms, most of them fully qualified to undertake this litigation, have filed proposed class actions.

Architectural Models, Inc. v. Neklason

264 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 1967

In this regard, two clearly established principles must be kept in mind. … Wold clearly recalled that this discussion with Neklason occurred within a week or two after the first machine was delivered to plaintiff.

Rodriguez v. Martinez

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 29, 2021

What is required to establish an unnecessary and wanton 21 infliction of pain varies according to the nature of the alleged constitutional violation. Id. 22 at 320. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 21 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

United States v. Smyth

104 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 1952

The only limitation on the immunity of grand jurors is jurisdictional. … Here there is no question but that O’Gara was a duly appointed, qualified and acting Assistant ' United States Attorney. 95 .

Sullivan v. City of Berkeley

383 F. Supp. 3d 976 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 2019

Unattended property that was "clearly refuse or garbage," however, would be disposed of immediately. … It is therefore clearly relevant, is the admission of a party opponent, and is deemed authenticated. See Orr v. Bank of America , 285 F.3d 764 , 777 n.20 (9th Cir. 2002).

Engrum v. IRS

District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 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.