Case law

Ahmed v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2021

Second, 25 the Court concluded that the County and its employees were immune from Plaintiffs’ claims under 26 California Government Code Section 856, which establishes that “neither a public entity nor a 27 public … After the trial court held that the state was immune to the 3 medical malpractice claims, the plaintiff amended his complaint to take advantage of an exception 4 to the immunity, which provided that liability exists

Frary v. Atkinson

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2023

He names four defendants 20 (Atkinson; Carausu; Taylor; Landrum; and Gaston) at the Santa Rita County Jail, but only 21 Landrum appears in the factual allegations, and plaintiff has not established that Landrum 22 … That is clearly not a good thing, but he must allege more for it to constitute an 20 Eighth Amendment violation.

E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr

385 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 24, 2019

Finally, an injunction would vindicate the public's interest - which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate - in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors. … Except for the limited category of aliens who qualify as a "victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons." 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (c)(4)(ii).

Cooper v. McGrath

314 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 2004

The state court’s rejection of the severance claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. Cooper is not entitled to the writ on this claim. D. … established federal law.”

Von Brimer v. Whirlpool Corporation

362 F. Supp. 1182 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 1973

Because the document which plaintiffs seek to introduce is at best a photostatic copy of an original, it is clearly secondary evidence. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 157 Cal.App.2d 313 , 320 P.2d 918 (1958). … The other line of cases, which seem to have no one parent and do not contain any such concise standard, generally arise out of the attempt by courts to decide whether the transfer of interest in the patent in question qualifies

In re Nektar Therapeutics Securities Litigation

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

And you can clearly see that we had a significant increase in CD8 positive T-effector cells 2 with no increase in T-reg cells. … Tellingly, Plaintiffs do not clearly address 3 this argument or distinguish any of the supporting cases cited by Defendants.

Doe

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 2026

Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities. 18 57. … claims cannot proceed unless he has 14 plausibly alleged Defendant’s conduct is “state action.” 15 Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 16 immunities

Chaganti v. 12 Phone International, Inc.

635 F. Supp. 2d 1065 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 2007

An offer must clearly articulate the terms of the agreement and the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified and a mirror image of the offer. See Panagotacos v. Bank of America, 60 Cal.App.4th 851, 855 , 70 Cal. … Rather, Chaganti must establish that the services he performed were not intended to be gratuitous. See id.

Rothschild v. Gildred

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2023

allegation of 20 poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim 21 on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … To establish a Title II ADA violation, a plaintiff must prove that: “(1) he is a qualified 18 individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits 19 of a public entity

In re Carrier IQ, Inc.

78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2015

However, such an effect may clearly be inferred from the SCAC. … A review of § 502(c) reveals that at least some of these provisions clearly do not apply to the facts alleged in the SCAC.

Marriage of Nasca v. PeopleSoft

87 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 1999

The plan administrator then reviews the DRO to determine whether the DRO meets the requirements for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) described in 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(B). … Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 66 , 107 S.Ct. 1542 , 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987), for the proposition that “Congress has clearly manifested an intent to make causes of action within the scope of [ 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a) ] removable to federal

Beal v. Gritstone bio, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 24, 2025

data” and that Gritstone’s “recent publication in Nature 17 Communications demonstrates the scientific rigor of our work to date and the 18 ability of our samRNA platform to drive potent and durable immune … Indeed, Gritstone specifically stated that it 9 “currently lacks the internal resources and the capability to manufacture certain elements 10 of [its] product candidates” and thus needed to “rely on qualified third

Hill v. Nelson

272 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 1967

In conjunction with their petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioners alternatively seek injunctive and declaratory relief in order to redress the alleged denial under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities … The principles established in the cases cited above govern this Court’s consideration of the application for injunctive relief.

Barker v. McFerran

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 18, 2023

Id. at 102. 10 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that clearly alleges the date(s) she 11 contacted an EEO counselor, and that clearly alleges the events and conduct … “In a failure-to-promote case, a plaintiff may establish a prima 13 facie case of discrimination in violation of the ADEA by producing evidence that he or she was 14 (1) at least forty years old, (2) qualified for the

Villasenor v. Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County, Inc.

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

In mathematical terms: Measuring Benefit – Qualified Plan = Non-Qualified Monthly Plan 27 Benefits. … 9 10 In sum, the Court finds that three Hummell factors weigh in favor of awarding attorneys’ 11 fees while only one factor clearly

Moss v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 2025

Moss was qualified for the School Crossing Guard position. … Moss 8 was qualified for. As Mr.

Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Mediatek, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2024

This 19 immunity can extend to state law claims as well. Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. … However, if either prong of this test is not established, discovery proceeds.

American Booksellers Ass'n v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

135 F. Supp. 2d 1031 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2001

The First Amended Consent Order also clearly is intended to preclude ABA members from suing St. … Only to the extent that a buyer actually performs certain functions, assuming all the risk, investment, and costs involved, should he legally qualify for a functional discount.

Linnehan v. Kijakazi

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

Artz discussed treatment options with Plaintiff, 6 but does not establish that he advised any particular treatments or medications. Cf. … They will, at best, keep you as you are.” 26 (AR 64, 65-66.) 27 In sum, while Plaintiff clearly had concerns about possible treatments, the record does not

Sullivan v. Kelly Services., Inc.

268 F.R.D. 356 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2010

Plaintiffs assert that this case qualifies for class certification under subdivisions (b)(3). … The class members’ claims clearly have something in common: all class members are or were Defendant’s employees and have attended at least one customer interview while employed; and their claims are based on common theories