Case law

National Center for Youth Law v. Legal Services Corp.

749 F. Supp. 1013 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 1990

State retention of power not clearly preempted or delegated by Congress is presumed — “though not repeatedly recited”— in Congressional enactments. Id. (quoting United States v. … Applicants may qualify for state Trust funding by providing special services, including legal representation “on matters of specialized substantive law important to special client groups.” Guideline 2.6.3.

Rosas v. City of Santa Rosa

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2022

“Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct 24 insofar as it is ‘intimately associated’ with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” … ’s role in judicial 1 “[I]t is well established that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the decision to prosecute a 2 particular case, and for the decision not to prosecute a particular case or group of cases.”

Standard Oil Co. of California v. Agsalud

442 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 21, 1977

In effect, defendants’ contention means that if private parties must spend money in order to comply with state regulation, that regulation is an exercise of the state’s taxing power and therefore immune from federal regulation … Both those Acts established funds administered by the- government *704 for the payment of benefits.

O'Neal v. CF Watsonville West LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 2022

When immunity applies, an injured 24 person or such a person’s survivor must seek compensation through a regulatory program, 42 25 U.S.C. § 247d-6e, unless the injury occurs due to willful misconduct, 42 U.S.C. § 247d … Thus, Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the scope of the PREP Act, and 27 Defendant has failed to establish complete preemption. 1 C.

City and County of San Francisco v. United States

930 F. Supp. 1348 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 22, 1996

. § 702 , which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in suits seeking judicial review of agency actions where judicial review has not been expressly authorized by statute. See Parola v. … Thus the court clearly has jurisdiction to review GAO’s decision and to afford plaintiff the relief it has requested.

Chip Steak Co. v. Hardin

332 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 20, 1971

Since the promulgation of 9 C.F.R. 318.7(d) (2) clearly constitutes final agency action, plaintiffs’ challenge of the regulation is “ripe” for adjudication under Abbot Laboratories v. … * * is prohibited by regulations of the Secretary (of Agriculture) in establishments at which inspection is maintained * *.”

In re Forsyth

78 F. 296 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 1897

This power can be, and is, effectively exercised by the established rules of procedure and by the usual orders and processes of the court. … This contention is clearly erroneous, and founded upon mistaken premises. The clerk of this court is not, in any sense, holding the check in an individual or private capacity.

Reiner v. Guerrero

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 23, 2025

The party 18 invoking subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. 19 See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). 20 ii. … Judicial Immunity and Quasi-Judicial Immunity 19 Even assuming anything remains of Plaintiff’s claims, Justice Guerrero and Mr.

Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2021

“It is well settled that the United States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit 18 unless it has expressly waived such immunity and consented to be sued.” … Hadsell bears 23 the burden of establishing its existence.

Adams v. Manglicmot

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

Defendants counter that (1) plaintiff fails to show that defendants were deliberately 25 indifferent to his medical needs; and (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the Court has found that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not violated.

Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co.

467 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 6, 1979

The boundaries of the Bay for this purpose may not be clearly established — i. e., it may or may not be feasible, in view of the running time, to perform San Francisco-Oakland jobs with tugs based as far away as Benicia — … What the cases so far decided establish is that *860 common ownership or control of corporations does not immunize conduct which would otherwise violate Section 1.

Lee v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

673 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 1987

Clearly, section 790.03(h) relates to employee benefit plans since it prohibits unfair claims settlement practices. 2 See Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. … The Court finds this claim not clearly insufficient. Therefore, Kwan Lee may amend his complaint provided he also allege his request for information.

Terry v. California State Board of Pharmacy

395 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, N.D. California · May 12, 1975

Before examining these interests, a framework for analysis must be established. … The position defendants later adopted would clearly permit informational advertising by nonlicentiates, and would just as clearly prohibit promotional advertising by licensed pharmacists, but is unclear about the other two

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chung

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 5, 2020

Plaintiff’s first alternative ground runs into another 2 logic problem: merely because the information purportedly misappropriated by Chung 3 might qualify as “proprietary” under contract does not establish that that … not qualify as a 19 misappropriation of its customer lists.

Hudacko v. The Regents of the University of California

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2024

prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, the movants must first make a prima facie 4 showing, through the pleadings themselves and supporting affidavits, that the statements or conduct 5 underlying the legal claims against them qualifies … “To the extent the complaint rests on 3 the attorney’s alleged communicative acts of counseling and advising his clients, the privilege is 4 clearly operative.”

Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization v. City of Union City

314 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 15, 1970

Having in mind the established constitutionality and basic importance of state referendum statutes, this court concludes that plaintiff’s attack upon the constitutionality of the California referendum statute, as applied … However, assuming plaintiffs were able to allege some action on the part of these individual defendants, the question remains whether they would have a qualified privilege, giving them a defense against civil liability for

Martin v. Continental Casualty Co.

96 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2000

The fact that an administrator’s decision is in conflict with evidence in the record is not alone sufficient to meet the clearly erroneous standard. Taft, 9 F.3d at 1473-4. … Sierra Pacific Power Co., 85 F.3d 455 (9th Cir.1996), plaintiff was denied disability coverage because she was deemed to be able to perform work available for which she was qualified, with accommodations.

Larry P. v. Riles

495 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 1979

Davis are clearly absent here. … As stated clearly by that court in Crawford v.

United States v. Mumphrey

193 F. Supp. 3d 1040 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2016

While the incidents are clearly gender based, they are not always clearly race based. *1051 B. … Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.2002) (rejecting officer’s qualified immunity defense and affirming partial summary judgment in favor of Hispanic motorists who brought equal protection challenge' under §

Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 2025

The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 2 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). … Thus, Plaintiff must clearly provide the legal and factual basis for 10 || all claims and must do so by filing an amended complaint by April 11, 2025.