Case law

Marshall Wexler v. Regents University of California, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 2026

Wexler’s assertion that the Regents had waived sovereign 11 immunity because they received ACA funds but stated that he could not “evaluate the adequacy of 12 such an assertion in a vacuum.” … Wexler has failed to clearly allege 8 that either individual engaged in the alleged misconduct identified above. Dr.

Meaux v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

718 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 2010

LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail … Within this framework, plaintiffs may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by reference to circumstantial evidence; to do so, plaintiffs must show that they are members of a protected class; that they were qualified

Tenants & Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

406 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 1970

Nor can immunity against such review be inferred. “[P] reclusion of judicial review of administrative action adjudicating private rights is not lightly to be inferred . … qualify for the definition of low cost housing, it should be counted toward the total.

Kentucky Central Life Insurance v. LeDuc

814 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 1992

California law does not clearly define such a legal duty. … As the reference does not appear clearly, plaintiffs will be given leave to amend the complaint to clearly state allegations of malice.

Gonzalez v. Monterey County, Cal.

808 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 1992

A claim is insubstantial if “ ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the question sought to be raised can be the … If the County does not present the court with a precleared plan on or before February 26, 1993, the court will order an interim plan which will establish supervisorial districts for the conduct of the election now scheduled

Newman v. Google LLC

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

This allows 10 content creators to earn revenue from their qualifying videos. … As such, 19 Defendants’ publishing decisions do not qualify as state action. Id.

Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

119 F. Supp. 3d 1065 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 21, 2015

In Green , the employer dis *1079 qualified any applicant convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense. … This order does not find anything in the record that would indicate that Guerrero embodied an unqualified — or even a less qualified — applicant.

Pacheco v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2025

In the Ninth Circuit, there are 15 two ways to establish fraudulent joinder: “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, 16 or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the … May 8, 2023) (“[A] self-serving declaration written by the defendant in 16 question hardly qualifies as the ‘extraordinarily strong evidence’ required to prove fraudulent 17 joinder.”

Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2022

TRO Plaintiffs—along with four 1 Carlos Ortiz, and Pat Perez)—qualified for this year’s FedExCup Playoffs. … 9 clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.”)

Washington v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2021

The requirements to establish 23 subject matter jurisdiction over a tax refund suit are unambiguous and have long been established 24 by courts. … Unless the parties seeking to enjoin the 22 government clearly set forth one of the limited statutory or judicially created exceptions to the 23 AIA, the Court has no jurisdiction and the action must be dismissed.

Bryant v. City of Antioch

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 2021

App. 4th 481 (1995) to argue that they 7 are entitled to Section 845 immunity. … Gates, then, involved California 16 statutory immunity for violations of the California Constitution and statutes12 for failure to provide 17 adequate police services, not immunity from federal law. 18

Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

236 F. Supp. 3d 1126 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 17, 2017

Indeed, Defendant leans heavily on the majority opinion in that case for its argument that the plain language of section 4(a)(2) clearly limits its application to employees. … Moreover, as Judge Martin noted in her dissent, “the Supreme Court has even told us that when the word employee lacks any temporal qualifier it can include people other than current employees,” such as “prospective employees

Doe v. Barr

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 2020

,” which can impact immune responses.37 16 “Depression, anxiety, and PTSD have all been found to directly stimulate production of pro- 17 inflammatory cytokines, as well as downregulate cellular immunity leading to increased … Continued detention and exposure to health-threatening 12 conditions establish this element.

Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

73 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2014

Participant X’s immigration status, but instead found that he had worked the requisite number of hours needed to qualify for the benefits, timely enrolled his children in the Plan, sought reimbursement for qualifying health … Sun Life has not established as a matter of law that Participant X is not an “employee” under the Policy.

Johnson v. Posson

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 2021

immunity. … On the face of the pleadings, the moving party must clearly establish 15 “that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

Hajro v. Barrett

849 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2012

Clearly this record indicates that your testimony was not truthful and failed to reveal an accurate image of your past activities in your home country. [....] … And when asked about my participation in Territorial Defense, I clearly explained that I was involved and there is no reason for me to hide it. ROP 3. 89. Ms.

Facebook, Inc. v. MaxBounty, Inc.

274 F.R.D. 279 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2011

Commercial, political, and charitable organizations also may establish a presence on Face-book by creating “pages” to which users can connect their profiles. (Id. at ¶ 14.) … Wallace support its position that “messages sent and received within the Facebook site qualify as ‘electronic mail messages’ under the Act.” (Pl.’s Opp., 2:23-24.)

Ahmed v. Wormuth

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 2024

Even if Ahmed could establish a prima facie case, he 27 himself testified he was not the most qualified candidate, and there is no evidence—much less 1 to interview Ahmed was pretext for discrimination. … He argues Wormuth’s 16 explanation “is clearly unworthy of credence as Dr. Amin’s testimony to investigators directly 17 contradicts Defendant’s funding explanation.” Opp’n at 15.

United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

153 F. Supp. 3d 1076 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2015

(“Congress clearly intended to punish any obstruction of the administrative process... at any stage of the proceedings, be it adjudicative or investigative.”); United States v. … Ermoian, 752 F.3d 1165, 1172 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that an FBI investigation does not qualify as an "official proceeding” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 ).

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.

307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 19, 2004

While the Court further declared that copyrights are not immune from challenges under the First Amendment, it is a stretch to claim that Eldred mandated absolute First Amendment protection for fair use of copyrighted works … Accordingly, there is a rational basis for concluding that the regulated activity sufficiently affects interstate commerce to establish that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the legislation.