Case law

Butterfield, Sr. v. General Electric Company

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

Accordingly, a contractor who agrees to operate a production facility 2 pursuant to government specifications may qualify for the defense”); Butler v. … As detailed 10 below, the evidence NASSCO submits establishes that it has a colorable federal defense. 11 i.

Everett Associates, Inc. v. Transcontinental Insurance

159 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2001

To establish Transcontinental owed Payne a duty of care and proximate causation, Plaintiff must establish that he qualifies as a “direct victim” of Defendants’ breach under Molien v. … A & B) The question here is whether the Clark settlement or any component of it qualify as “damages because of advertising injury.”

Lynch v. Rank

639 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 18, 1985

There, the party defendant and the two nonparty respondents clearly worked within a common scheme to launder illegally obtained proceeds. … The foregoing analysis of cases shows clearly why this Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed against Putnam.

LeMoon v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

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

The court further granted Sheriff 5 Ferrara qualified immunity on these causes of action. Id. at 10. … “The requisite 25 causal connection can be established by setting in motion a series of acts by others, or 26 by knowingly refusing to terminate a series of acts by others, which the supervisor knew 27 or reasonably

Douglas v. California Office of Administrative Hearings

78 F. Supp. 3d 942 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2015

A writ of ordinary mandamus can be used to force a particular action by an agency when the law clearly establishes the petitioner’s right to such action. Miller Family Home, Inc. v. … California Health & Safety Code § 123929(a) sets forth the requirements for a child to qualify for CCS services.

Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.

106 F. Supp. 3d 1083 · District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2015

Id. at 5:1 — 3. 2 Unwired urges the Court to think about different types of transmissions as existing on a spectrum; some types of transmissions clearly use voice channels, others clearly use data channels, and still others … This is clearly an effort by Unwired to make money off of its software technology.

Guzman v. Jones

District Court, N.D. California · May 12, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 13 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 14 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 25 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 26 appropriate markings in the margins).

Armstead v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 26, 2022

The City is not immune for the negligence claim under Cal. 11 Gov’t Code §§ 845 and 846. … immunized police action. 10 “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police 11 department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service

Randle v. Contra Costa County Conflicts Panel

District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2024

He alleges these attorneys did not provide him adequate 24 representation and were not qualified because they “never won a case with lying in wait … These are clearly traditional functions performed by a defense lawyer in criminal 1 color of state law, as is required to be liable under Section 1983, when they allegedly failed to 2 represent Plaintiff in the manner

Southern Pac. Co. v. Corbett

20 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 1937

One who is entitled to sue in the federal circuit court may invoke its jurisdiction in equity whenever the established principles and rules of equity permit such a suit in that court; and he cannot be deprived of that right … When we view realistically the facts set out in the bill, supplemented with our judicial notice of the practical necessities of a large transportation enterprise, we clearly perceive that this property is used in interstate

Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

75 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 2014

The EPA maintains that the settlement agreement clearly states that the settlement does not deem either of the Plaintiffs a “prevailing party” for purposes of attorneys’ fees under FOIA. Id. at 21. … C.I.A., 555 F.Supp. 907, 911 (W.D.N.Y.1983) (compensation for work performed after records were released “would assess a penalty against defendants which is clearly unwarranted”).

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 1, 2022

However the NIED claim cannot be maintained against CCSF due to the immunity of Cal. Govt. … The Court agrees. 7 An ADA violation is established when a plaintiff proves that (1) she is a “qualified individual 8 with a disability;” (2) “she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits

Ramirez v. Yates

71 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 2014

The court may grant the writ only if the state court’s ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of … A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle ... but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the

Feshbach v. Securities & Exchange Commission

5 F. Supp. 2d 774 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 23, 1997

Exemption 7(E) To qualify for Exemption 7(E), the non-disclosing agency must demonstrate that the records, if disclosed, would risk circumvention of the law. Davin v. U.S. … Justice, 988 F.2d 248 , 252 (D.C.Cir.1993) (“Had the [agency] submitted a more specific affidavit ... providing reasons why releasing each withheld section would create a risk of circumvention of the law, or had the [agency] clearly

Coleman v. Ortiz

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2020

“A plaintiff must do more 10 than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate 11 immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” … P. 65(b)(1) (TRO can issue without notice to adverse party only if 23 “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable 24

Heikkila v. Barber

164 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 1, 1958

held that the attorney could be proceeded against by way of contempt proceedings both for diverting the property before the decree was entered and retaining the property subsequent thereto, and that he could not set up his immunity … This has been an established principle for a good many years: “The general rule is well settled that an appeal from a decree granting, refusing, or dissolving an injunction does not disturb [the decree’s] operative effect

Martinez v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

680 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 1987

Defendants have not established their business necessity argument here. Plaintiffs are entitled to be considered for managerial and administrative jobs if they are individually qualified. E.g., Mozee v. … In an individual claim of disparate treatment, plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case by proving that they applied for positions for which they were qualified, but were “rejected under circumstances which give rise

Cupp v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2025

immunity; and Cupp’s claims under the California Constitution. … The Court 18 also previously determined that because “Cupp [did] not demonstrate[] that the rights allegedly 19 violated were clearly established,” Defendants Cablk and Hoffman were entitled to qualified 20 immunity

Klim v. Jones

315 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 1970

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … In view of the approach to abstention expressed in the above cases, this court can see no good reason why it should abstain from deciding a case properly and clearly before it.

Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc.

369 F. Supp. 3d 950 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 28, 2019

"The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. … Nor does that rule clearly apply to CAFA-based removal which, as this court has discussed at length, is distinct from removal based on § 1332. See generally Coffey , 333 F.