Case law

Flintkote Co. v. General Accident Assurance Co.

410 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 2006

With respect to the first two sources of authority, the court is clearly bound to follow California contract interpretation law, and California law makes clear that the policy itself is the primary guide to interpretation … Given this definition of “occurrence,” the next question is which incidents qualify as occurrences in the context of asbestos-related injuries.

Occidental Geothermal, Inc. v. Simmons

543 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 1982

Act clearly are capable of bearing a meaning that encompasses geothermal resources,” and that it would further Congress’ purposes to interpret these words as carrying this meaning. Id. at 1274. … Any person qualified to locate and enter the coal or other mineral deposits, or having the right to mine and remove the same under the laws of the United States, shall have the right at all times to enter upon the lands entered

Carl Washington v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2019

The notice “must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language”: 6 (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition … Cal. 2018) (“To 6 be typical, a class representative need not prove that she is immune from any possible defense . . . . 7 Instead, she must establish that she is not subject to a defense that is not typical of the

Bearden v. Alameda County

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2020

Zamora “clearly watched and allowed[] Bernal 7 to verbally attack” the plaintiff by “shouting obscenities”; (2) Mr. Zamora watched as Ms. … To establish liability under Monell, a plaintiff must allege a policy or custom 17 established by municipal policymakers and show that this policy or custom was the “moving force” 18 behind the constitutional violation

Zenger-Miller, Inc. v. Training Team, GmbH

757 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 1991

Even if the language clearly provides for arbitration of fee disputes only, defendants contend that the California parol evidence rule compels the court to preliminarily consider evidence outside the contract. … However, courts have not established a “balancing test” to determine when there would be such application.

Bearden v. Alameda County

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 2020

Without such 8 a statute, the public entity is immune from suit. … The County of Alameda’s internal workplace violence prevention policy is not an 27 enactment and thus cannot qualify as the basis for a § 815.6 claim. Although the County of 1 duty.

College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed

523 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2007

II PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Ninth Circuit has established two sets of criteria for evaluating a request for a preliminary injunction. Earth Island Inst. v. … While the need to accommodate important competing interests makes it difficult to draw bright line distinctions in much First Amendment jurisprudence, there are some clearly established propositions to which we must attend

Anschutz Corp. v. MERRILL LYNCH AND CO. INC.

785 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2011

Instead, because these securities were unregistered, they were available only to a limited group of “qualified institutional buyers” (QIBs) like TAC. FAC ¶ 180. … However, documents drafted solely by DBSI cannot be used against FRL to establish jurisdiction. 33 .

Malae v. City of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 9, 2021

Because the Court is granting plaintiff leave to amend, the Court finds 27 it unnecessary to address defendants’ arguments about qualified immunity. … If plaintiff pursues 1 of qualified immunity. 2 3

Bennett v. Newsom

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2024

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 23 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 24 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Due to 20 the fact that there clearly was a contract. That was a duty owed to Plaintiff to pay his rent. And breach of this contract violates the 14th 21 Amendment of the U.S.

Holmes v. TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC.

772 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2011

On September 13, 2007, THC hired Gaeta as Director of THC’s Housing Services Department, finding her to be the most qualified candidate. In this position, Gaeta was Holmes’ supervisor. … First, he contends that “the substantial credible evidence clearly demonstrates” that Local 1021 breached its duty of fair representation, by “failing and refusing to take the termination of his November 6, 2008 termination

Coleman v. American International Group, Inc. Group Benefit Plan

87 F. Supp. 3d 1250 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2015

Hartford acknowledged that its decision to invoke the mental illness limitation as of June 2009 had been “premature,” because “it was not clearly established that [Colman’s]'physical complaints were not impairing at that … To be sure, the October 2011 letter in which Hartford informed Colman that she had not established that qualified as disabled due to a physical condition was “hardly a model of clarity,” Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Gutierrez v. City of Antioch

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 2024

Accordingly, if Plaintiffs choose to amend their 12 Complaint, they are admonished to amend so as to assert clearly why they believe the statute of 13 limitations does not bar Claim 7. … It is well-established that state 3 officials acting in their official capacity are immune from claims for damages seeking monetary 4 relief. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); Will v. Mich.

United States v. Hom

45 F. Supp. 3d 1175 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 4, 2014

To accomplish this end, the Act established reporting requirements for transactions involving foreign financial agencies. 31 U.S.C. 5314. … Section 5312(a)(2) lists 26 different types of entities that may qualify as a “financial institution.”

Minor v. Fedex Office & Print Services, Inc.

182 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 2016

Therefore, privity is established for these parties. See Liquidators, 630 F.3d at 1150 (privity established where parties are identical). … For the above reasons, the California Supreme Court concluded that “individuals who do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.”

Hanover Insurance v. Fremont Bank

68 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 2014

“Thus, it has been established for well over a century that a communication is absolutely immune from any tort liability if it has ‘some relation’ to judicial proceedings.” Id. (citing Rubin v. … Rather, it seeks to establish its right to recover ahead of the Bank.

Bolden v. Contra Costa County

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

Plaintiff argues that the 23 defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, and that all Defendants are liable for 24 battery, negligence, and violation of the Bane Act. (Id.) … Defendants also argue 5 that Acosta and Gonzalez are not liable under the integral participant doctrine, and that all three 6 officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.)

Desert Survivors v. US Department of the Interior

231 F. Supp. 3d 368 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 2017

The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege. Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161 . … The Supreme Court went on to find that the affidavits offered by the Secretary were merely “post-hoc rationalizations” of the decision that provided “an inadequate basis for review” and “clearly [did] not constitute the ‘

Oakley v. DeVos

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 17, 2020

First, similar to their constitutional arguments, plaintiffs contend that the 2 Secretary’s imposition of eligibility requirements violates the APA as “contrary to constitutional 3 right, power, privilege, or immunity … Irreparable Harm 16 To establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, plaintiffs “must do more than merely allege 17 imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; [they

Richards v. Essick

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 19, 2022

The qualifying physical injury must be more than de minimis, but need not be 26 significant. Oliver v. … To establish the requisite “causal 18 connection,” the plaintiff must show that but for the protected activity, the adverse action would 19 not have been taken. Doan v. San Ramon Valley Sch. Dist., No.