Case law

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

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

In re Quintus Securities Litigation

201 F.R.D. 475 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 2001

Alternatively, the court may itself establish terms for the class’ representation or initiate a process by which those terms can be established. … Clearly, Barton’s arrangement preserves a much greater portion of the recovery for the benefit of the class.

Aguirre v. Ducart

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2021

“Moreover, evidence may qualify as ‘some evidence,’ even if it does not ‘logically 12 13 the future expectation of unearned good behavior credits … immunity where it finds no constitutional violation under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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

Murray

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2025

The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 4 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 17 all claims and must do so by filing an amended complaint by December 19, 2025.

Montanocordoba v. Contra Costa County

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

Shiraishi Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 5 Lastly, the court further finds that Shiraishi would be entitled to summary judgment 6 based on qualified immunity. … Given that failure, the court finds that Shiraishi is entitled to qualified immunity. As 1 D.

Vetco Offshore Industries, Inc. v. Rucker Co.

448 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 1978

Rucker is entitled to summary judgment if the disclosures qualify under Section 102(b). Plaintiff contends that for several reasons they do not. … In that case, plaintiff clearly could claim no patentable differences. 6 .

Harris v. Acts Syrene Apartments

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2022

The Court also 23 finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that no other adequate remedy is available. 24 The Social Security Act and associated regulations establish administrative procedures for 25 … Supp. 2d 414, 434 (D.P.R. 2011) (dismissing Section 1983 claim against landlord where 15 plaintiff participated in tenant-based Section 8 housing program1 on the basis that the landlord 16 was “clearly a private entity

In re Apple & AT & TM Antitrust Litigation

826 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 2011

Here, Plaintiffs contend that in the “context of [an] antitrust case” such as this one, the class action waiver in Defendant ATTM’s arbitration agreement provides Defendant ATTM with “de facto immunity from liability for … The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the fact that arbitration procedures “do not provide for broad equitable relief’ does not render those procedures void. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 32 , 111 S.Ct. 1647 .

Parravano v. Babbitt

861 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 29, 1994

See discussion of HYSA, above. 6 Thus, the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Indians clearly have a federally reserved fishing-right. … The Ninth Circuit held that, even absent such a showing, such regulation "to protect and conserve the fishery resource for the benefit of the Indians,” was not an abrogation of what the Court clearly held to be a well-established

Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortgage

259 F.R.D. 437 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 21, 2009

Plaintiffs assert that this case qualifies for class certification under subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3). … The class members’ claims clearly have something in common: all class members purchased an OARM from Lending 1st, and their claims are based on a common theory of liability.

Burhardt v. Alvarez

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 2021

“A 11 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 12 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of … review, the Court must identify any 24 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon 25 which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 2021

It is well-established that federal, state, and tribal governments can 20 waive that immunity. Id.; Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. … As I previously found when it came to PPN’s sovereign immunity, see JOP Order at 20 10–12, PPN expressly, clearly, and unequivocally waived reliance on exhaustion of tribal court 21 remedies.

Brennan v. Concord EFS, Inc.

369 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, N.D. California · May 4, 2005

The whirlwind of bank mergers and acquisitions in the last five years makes for quite a tangle of rights and liabilities, but the complaint clearly states that each of the defendant banks either (1) is entitled to appoint … not a mantra to escape per se analysis: *1133 It is not the case * * * that the mere existence of a bona fide joint venture means that participating companies may use the enterprises to do anything they please with full immunity

Gardner v. City of Berkeley

838 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 17, 2012

Plaintiff completed the application process at the top of his field, and was placed on the eligibility list as “Best Qualified.” Gardner Decl. ¶ 30; Docket No. 48, Exh. A. … Furthermore, Defendant’s actions clearly indicated that they were unwilling to cooperate further with Plaintiff.

Goldberg v. Cameron

482 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2007

This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of purposeful availment under the effects test of Panavision.”). … “A defendant asserting laches must establish both unreasonable delay by the plaintiff and prejudice to himself.” Id.

Boydston v. Asset Acceptance LLC

496 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 2007

As federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary is established. Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 968-69 (9th Cir.1981). … The Court, however, noted that a “federal issue will ultimately qualify for a federal forum only if federal jurisdiction is consistent with congressional judgment about the sound divisions of labor between state and federal

Vietnamese Fishermen Ass'n of America v. California Department of Fish & Game

816 F. Supp. 1468 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 1993

Provisions of Proposition 132 As noted above, Proposition 132 clearly prohibits the use of gill and trammel nets to take rockfish within the state’s coastal waters, i.e., from 0 to 3 miles offshore. … Further, plaintiffs’ complaint contained claims based on Privileges and Immunities and equal protection.

Shin v. Nicholson

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 29, 2023

But that case may not establish a duty here. The Court was clear in William S. … The defendants argue that the punitive damages allegations against the City are clearly a nonstarter since the City is immune from punitive damages under California Government Code § 818.