Case law

Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 2026

Although Plaintiff alleged Larry 22 engaged in intentional misconduct “using the social networking website,” he did not name the 23 social network and did not clearly explain the alleged misconduct. … forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it “(i) is 24 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 25 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

McGee v. Milpitas Police Department

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 23, 2023

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that the arresting officer (who is 27 not named and has not appeared) is protected by qualified immunity. … McGee disputes that he qualifies as 12 a sex offender or that he is required to register as such, he does not dispute that the officer arrested 13 him based on records reflecting Mr.

Medtronic Vascular Inc. v. Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.

614 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 2009

To incorporate by reference, the prior art patent must “identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found.” See Advanced Disp. … The cursory reliance on confidentiality designations made pursuant to the underlying protective order is clearly insufficient.

Karimi v. Golden Gate Sch. of Law

361 F. Supp. 3d 956 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 2019

Defendants also assert that if Karimi "cannot establish a breach of contract, he has no claim for breach of implied covenant arising from a contract." Id. at 11 (citing Camp v. … The introductory phrase "[p]ending action on charges" also does not clearly require that formal charges must be filed before a student may be placed on interim suspension.

Uriostegui v. Gates

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2022

The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with this 23 doctor’s diagnosis does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 11 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Coming Up, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

830 F. Supp. 1302 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 1993

Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), which had immunized municipalities from suit under section 1983, by holding that municipal governments may be sued for section 1983 violations which were caused by … However, the Charter itself does not clearly and unequivocally reveal whether the Chief has actual policy powers or merely plays a ministerial role in enforcing the law and carrying out policy set by the Commission.

Century Federal, Inc. v. City of Palo Alto, Cal.

648 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 3, 1986

The second phase of the selection process involved negotiations with one or more of the so-called most qualified applicants. … On the antitrust claims, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the defendant municipalities were immune from liability for the challenged conduct. Id. at 1561 .

Janvier v. City Of Oakland

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 25, 2022

No. 1 at ¶¶ 160-167). 9 Under Section 1983, Plaintiffs may sue if they suffered a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 10 immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Violations of federal 11 statutes may serve as the basis of 1983 suits, so long as Congress did not “specifically foreclose[] 12 a remedy under § 1983”, and the statute created “rights, privileges, or immunities.”.

Williams v. Facebook, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 7, 2019

The Court concluded that “defendants have failed to meet their burden to 20 establish that the companies with which Dr. Dodds has an ongoing relationship directly compete 21 with them.” … Bang does 20 sound highly qualified, but given the technology industry in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, 21 there are a multitude of people nearby who have similar qualifications.

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.

Sierra Forest Legacy v. United States Forest Service

652 F. Supp. 2d 1065 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 27, 2009

The Supreme Court has clearly established that plaintiffs “challenging an agency’s compliance with NEPA, must ‘structure their participation so that it ... alerts the agency to the [parties’] position and contentions,’ in … The Forest Supervisor has concluded that the MIS Amendment does not qualify as a “significant” amendment to a forest plan. AR at 6169.

Coleman v. Allen

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

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 Knowledge and acquiescence of a subordinate’s misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; 19 each government official is only responsible for his or her own misconduct

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.”

Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2020

In its order, the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary 18 judgment as to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, including on qualified immunity … “[F]or purposes of determining whether [] alleged conduct 20 violates clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known,

O'Shea v. Rosete

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 30, 2023

The court “should not make an overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations 9 qualify for the [imminent danger] exception.” Andrews II, 493 F.3d at 1055. … The court should “clearly identif[y] three prior 14 dismissals” in order to “place[] [the plaintiff] on notice of the three cases that constituted strikes.” 15 Id.

Jones v. City and County of San Francisco

976 F. Supp. 896 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 1997

The “clearly erroneous” standard of Rule 53(e)(2) applies to nonjury actions. … The Court does not find the Special Master's findings to be clearly erroneous.

Taylor v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. California · May 31, 2024

This immunity 1 claim against the Superior Court is dismissed with prejudice. 2 However, a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to Title VII and 3 Title IX upon receipt of federal … As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to establish 6 the elements of a hostile work environment claim.

Carr v. First Nationwide Bank

816 F. Supp. 1476 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 1993

The court also holds that the unilateral contract principles that have been applied by the federal courts to “qualified” or “funded” pension plans may also govern Top Hat plans, which are “unfunded” and not “qualified”, 4 … The 1979 Plan contains a clause that states the Board may amend or modify the Plan, but that clause is clearly limited by language that prohibits “canceling, reducing or altering any outstanding awards” under the Plan.

Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 2024

Clashin’s lack of particularized expertise goes to the weight accorded her testimony, 2 not to the admissibility of her opinion as an expert.”). 3 The Court finds that any purported bias also clearly … This immunity, combined with the element of surprise, would be unfair.”). 7 Dr. Kennedy’s reply report offered “a new model based on a new methodology in response 8 to a criticism of [his] opening report.”

Miller v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

which are not incorporated under their treaty liability claims), the pleadings lack any allegations concerning the existence and nature of this duty, de *936 fendants’ failure to fulfill such a duty, or how this failure qualifies … These claims clearly fall within the scope of the Convention and are therefore preempted.