Case law

In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation

990 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 25, 2013

The Ninth Circuit has noted that “in many areas ‘the boundary between commercial and noncommercial speech has yet to be clearly delineated.’ ” Charles v. … (“The fact that the Copyright Act permits the grant of a geographically exclusive license does not immunize such licenses from attack under the antitrust laws.”).

Donahue v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

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

To prevail on an ADA 7 claim, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the 8 ADA; (2) that he is qualified, that is, with or without reasonable accommodation (which he 9 … Qualified Individual 21 An individual is qualified for purposes of the ADA if he “with or without reasonable 22 accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment

Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co.

268 F.R.D. 365 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2010

establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … (c) Where the food is not manufactured by the person whose name appears on the label, the name shall be qualified by a . phrase that reveals the connection such person has with such food; such as “Manufactured for _”, “Distributed

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.

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.)

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.

Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center v. Hospitality Properties Trust

317 F.R.D. 91 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 2016

Second, a plaintiff must also establish that one of the bases for certification in Rule 23(b) is met. … That is, Defendant admits that its status as a REIT does not immunize it from liability for ADA violations committed by the hotels that it owns.

Polanco v. State of California

District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2022

. ¶ 60. 4 The Court previously permitted most of Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed, and 5 Defendants appealed the Court’s denial of qualified immunity as to the Section 1983 … Where the rights violation is “clearly delineated and plainly 20 applicable,” specific intent may be shown by “[r]eckless disregard of the ‘right at issue.’” 21 Cornell v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 17 Cal.

Morris v. State of California

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 26, 2019

Cal. 19 Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections and 20 California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). 21 3. … Neither 9 the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant would be better served with the 10 assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues involved as complex.

Lincoln Alameda Creek v. Cooper Industries, Inc.

829 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 1992

“For a third party to qualify as a beneficiary under a contract, the contracting parties must have intended to benefit that third party, and their intent must appear from the terms of the contract.” Kirst v. … Therefore, Orsetti must show that the contract between Beta and Lincoln was clearly intended to inure to her benefit.

Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC

108 F. Supp. 3d 768 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2015

UFC also issues championship titles to athletes that win title bouts, but follows no independent ranking criteria and has not established objective standards to determine which fighters qualify to participate in a title bout … Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133 , 1140 (9th Cir.2004) (“[F]orum selection clauses are presumptively valid” unless the challenging party “‘clearly show[s] that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the

Mackey v. Broomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 5, 2022

Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003); 1 substance,” Wolff’s procedural protections must be afforded. 2 Wolff established five procedural requirements. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 10 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Maggay v. Micke

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 7, 2022

However, his claims are clearly intended to be against 4 specific staff members whom he made “aware” of his medical complaints. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 3 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

In re Telescopes Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2026

As the Court 4 noted above, it is clearly established in this district that expert opinions can be based upon publicly 5 available materials such as the ones relied upon by Dr. … The Court 14 found this subject matter clearly outside of Mr. Redman’s expertise, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, 15 finding: “Mr.

Hunter v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 2020

To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, 22 the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that 23 caused him an actual injury. … immunity grounds.

Naseri

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

For 7 liability to attach, the employer must know the extent of the qualified individual’s physical or 8 mental limitations. Zivkovic v. S. … Sovereign immunity prevents recovery for mental or emotional distress because the 19 Privacy Act “[did] not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional 20 distress.”

Herrera v. Ortega

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

Based on the identical allegations from the amended complaint 7 which are repeated in the second amended complaint, Plaintiff was clearly not denied his 8 right to have a prison appeal, and his mere disagreement with … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 20 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Shah

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 2026

USCIS was required to establish an administrative appeals process for “any determination made under this paragraph,” including “a petition by a[] [noncitizen] investor for status as an immigrant under this paragraph. … While “[r]etroactivity is not favored in the law,” if Congress clearly intended for a law to have retroactive effect, that intent governs. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v.

Gunzenhauser v. Garland

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2024

If Gunzenhauser cannot show that Mitchell knew he was better 20 qualified, he cannot show that she passed over him as a “clearly superior” candidate. 21 Second, Gunzenhauser’s argument parallels ones rejected … No. 52-1] Ex. 3 D at -125-26, he does not meet his burden to establish pretext. See Anderson, 169 F.