Case law

Opperman v. Path, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2015

Standing To Seek Injunctive Relief To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff in federal court must meet three requirements. Lujan v. … Defendants clarify that they do not believe the list of address book data contained in Plaintiffs’ Contacts App qualifies for copyright protection, but they do believe that the Copyright Act preempts Plaintiffs’ state-law

YZ Productions, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2021

In the instant case, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged facts that establish that 2 Defendant knew of specific acts of infringement. … Plaintiff contends that the CDA’s grant of immunity does not apply here because 12 Defendant is also an information content provider.

Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp.

376 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 13, 2005

The fact of purchase ... and ... sale of stock are generally matters which are verifiable by documentation, and do not depend upon oral recollection, so that failure to qualify [for standing] ... can normally be established … Clearly, the cases are distinguishable in this sense.

Citizens for Better v. US Dept. of Agriculture

497 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 17, 2007

The Ninth Circuit thus made it clear that the “wholesale neglect of the regulations” found here clearly established a NEPA violation. Thus, the USDA has not shown that its position was “substantially justified.” c. … However, where the litigation involves several claims some which do and others which do not qualify for catalyst treatment, there is a good reason to shift the burden of proof.

Volckmann v. Edwards

642 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 1986

In other words, defendants argue that the “pattern of racketeering” element of RICO requires a certain “unconnectedness” among acts before they qualify as predicate offenses. … While acknowledging that previous cases rejected such a requirement, the Northern Trust court opined that Sedima “clearly creates a whole new ballgame.” 615 F.Supp. at 833 . *113 It is thus worth examining Sedima in some

Mussetter Distributing, Inc. v. Dbi Beverage Inc.

685 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2010

In any event, the court cannot, as a matter of statutory interpretation, read into the statute a right to cancel existing contracts that does not exist in the statute and is not clearly supported by the legislative history … DBI seeks summary adjudication that it qualifies as a proper “successor beer manufacturer’s designee” under Section 25000.2.

United States v. Alameda Gateway, Ltd.

953 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 1996

Under this broad definition, the waters in which Gateway’s piers stand are clearly navigable. … Since May 27, 1970, the Corps has required that permits be issued for any work that is conducted shoreward of established harbor lines.

Whitall v. Munk

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2021

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … They also claim that they 25 are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.  26 A.

King v. Evans

621 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 2009

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … Petitioner has therefore established that his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated by trial counsel’s ineffective representation. *863 2.

Chiprez v. Adame

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 27, 2020

Does not name any SVSP defendant who did not act but is linked solely in 1 establish either supervisorial or municipal liability; and 2 f. … C 20-0307 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label the 12 complaint “Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form.

Chiron Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories

902 F. Supp. 1103 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 14, 1995

Antibodies are unique molecules formed by the immune system in response to infection, and HIV-specific antibodies are formed as part of the immune system’s defensive efforts. … As set forth above, the Amgen/Burroughs Wellcome line of cases clearly establish that in the context of genetic compounds, sequencing is a prerequisite to conception, and conception is not complete until there is actual reduction

Houston v. Canada Life Assurance Co.

137 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 10, 1956

Defendant’s counsel relies heavily on the position of insured’s body and gun to establish suicide. … The court properly held that a qualified physician was the proper expert to testify relative to wounds which might result from a particular set of physical facts.

Manriquez v. DeVos

345 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 25, 2018

Where sovereign immunity bars certain types of damages, those damages can constitute irreparable harm. See , e.g., Caspar v. Snyder , 77 F.Supp.3d 616 , 641 (E.D. … At this time, the Court cannot compel the Secretary to return to the Corinthian Rule, since the parameters of the Corinthian Rule are not clearly defined. See Norton v.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District v. United States Department of the Army

176 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2001

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under CERCLA CERCLA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity for challenges to cleanups at federal facilities. … Again, the District has failed to establish through the summary judgment procedure that the Army has violated any statute authorizing the payment of fees.

United States v. Federico

732 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 2, 1988

Similarly, Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) permits a court to reduce an already established sentence to reflect a defendant’s subsequent assistance with law enforcement officials. … In contrast, the prosecutor uses tools other than sentencing to encourage a defendant’s assistance, such as use immunity coupled with contempt proceedings.

Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Walker

78 F. Supp. 3d 1035 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 16, 2015

Because this establishes that they were “trades or businesses” under section 1301(b), I GRANT the Pension Fund’s motion for summary judgment. … For all of these reasons, AAS qualifies as a “trade or business” pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 1301 (b)(1). III.

Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.

526 F. Supp. 2d 985 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 2007

The second and third requirements of this test are clearly met. The Defendants here were also parties to the Syntex litigation. … July 27, 2007) (KSR “plainly raised the bar as to what qualifies as non-obvious”). 5 .

United States v. Thomas

216 F. Supp. 942 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 1963

(Jones, supra, 362 U.S. at 261-262 , 80 S.Ct. at 731 ) The Supreme Court enunciated the true* rule in Jones, 362 U.S. at 261 , 80 S.Ct.. at 731, there saying that, “[i]n order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful … That shack was clearly not the residence of Albert Michael Thomas. Therefore, the only basis upon which the search which was undertaken might fall within the scope of the warrant would be through the caption thereof.

Hoover v. Carey

508 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 2007

In 1987 reasonable jurists could disagree as to whether there was such a rule, demonstrating that it was not clearly established. Schardt v. … Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), then it is not a clearly established rule under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)”); see Kane v.

Motekaitis v. USI Insurance Services National, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 24, 2025

Moreover, 27 Defendants assert that claims against individual Defendants Cindy Gross and Scott Pinette fail 1 because both enjoy immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230. … In the instant motion, Defendants Pinette and Gross argue they enjoy the same immunity because they merely re-sent the email to clients who said they had not received it.