Case law

Baidan

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2025

Baidan’s claims appeared to relate to his access to the legal process in 9 the Shull action, the Court construed the original complaint as an attempt to plead violations under 10 Title II, which provides that “no qualified … Baidan’s 23 allegation that Leone Alberts is a “place of public accommodation” is conclusory and fails to 24 establish that any physical office associated with Leone Alberts “is open to the general public,” 25 that

Kevin B. Williams v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 2025

Court to screen in forma pauperis proceedings to 18 determine if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … 1019, 1032 (2019) (declining to “express any view on whether 14 a defendant violates the [Unruh] Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation”). 15 While it may be possible for occupation or profession to qualify

McCowan v. Johnson

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

Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these 14 exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition 15 with the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 … The Equal Protection 6 Clause does not assure uniformity of judicial decisions or immunity from judicial error; otherwise, 7 every alleged misapplication of state law would constitute a federal constitutional question

Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE

374 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2019

The joint employer doctrine recognizes that "even where business entities are separate, if they share control of the terms or conditions of an individual's employment, both companies can qualify as employers." … Plaintiffs have already had 4 opportunities to clearly state and allege facts in support of their claims. Plaintiffs' latest attempt to do so totals 108 pages.

Martin v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 11, 2020

Defendants argue that, although Dr. 8 Smith is qualified to testify about “certain aspects of the [collision], such as the sequence of 9 events,” he is not qualified to provide testimony on “medical diagnoses or the … May 16, 2008) (stating 24 that “‘biomechanics are qualified to determine what injury causation forces are in general and can 25 tell how a hypothetical person’s body will respond to those forces, but are not qualified

Smith v. City of Oakland

538 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2008

This result is just because the other actors who decided to continue to hold Smiddy, the district attorney and the municipal court judge, are absolutely immune from liability under section 1983.... … In the case at bar, assuming the presumption applies, the trial evidence and the jury’s verdict clearly establish that the presumption of prosecutorial independence was rebutted.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.

923 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1995

This evidence is sufficient to establish the value of the Advanced Technology works to the Church. … To the extent that someone uses or discloses any information taken from any of these articles, there is clearly no trade secret claim.

Liu v. Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan for The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2024

Plaintiff fails to establish that she was Ya-Xia’s designated 15 beneficiary. 16 2. … The Plan clearly sets forth the requirements for 23 commencing the benefit process and the definition of designated beneficiary.

Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC

486 F. Supp. 2d 1022 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 2007

The California Supreme Court concluded that Orloff and Stoumen had “clearly established” that the Civil Rights Act prohibited all arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations. … The court’s discussion focused primarily on the question whether the Boys’ Club qualified as a “business establishment,” but the court did reiterate its by-now familiar statement that “identification of particular bases of

Alderman v. City of Cotati

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2020

The Court also need not consider Defendants’ arguments regarding 20 qualified immunity and exemplary damages, as both only apply to Plaintiff’s constitutional claim. 21 C. … , a plaintiff must allege: “(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) 7 he is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, 8 programs, or activities; (3) he was

Grad v. Memorex Corp.

61 F.R.D. 88 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 1973

A steering committee comprised of four plaintiffs’ attorneys was established to coordinate the pre-trial activity of the class actions. … After establishing the use of some means of interstate commerce, . . .

Sullivan v. Chase Investment Services of Boston, Inc.

434 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 1977

Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that even if investment advisory services are not a security, fraud in the sale of such services qualifies as fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of other securities. … This Court will not immunize attorneys from liability under the Investment Advisers Act for such wrongdoing.

In Re APPLE COMPUTER SECURITIES LITIGATION

672 F. Supp. 1552 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 19, 1987

More importantly, such boasting clearly is an expression of opinion. In Apple’s view, Apple is the strongest, the most experienced, the market leader. … Lisa is clearly being recognized as an important force in the office market. This statement can be broken down into three parts — fact, opinion, and puffing.

Martin v. Muniz

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 21, 2020

immunity. … immunity.

Miletak v. Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2022

Under this law, “communications 21 made in or related to judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from tort liability.” Ingrid & 22 Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2014). … Myles, 47 F.4th at 1014 (citation omitted) (alterations in original). 6 On this basis, Acuity’s cross-claim for malicious prosecution clearly fails.

Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc.

682 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 22, 2010

Ultimate’s pleading is not a model of clarity, but the principle thrust or gravamen is clearly a challenge to TB Wines’ filing of the present action and the petition in the Georgia administrative proceeding, as well as to … Chudacoff, 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1265 , 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 383 *1017 (2008) (“a communication is absolutely immune from any tort liability if it has some relation to judicial proceedings”); Silberg v.

Hudson v. Capital Management International, Inc.

565 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 1983

Plaintiffs had ample notice of what they must plead to establish a transactional nexus. … The proposed defendant classes clearly do not come within any category of class action recognized under Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P.

Perez v. Monster Inc.

149 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

“To qualify as ‘HDMI High Speed,’ an HDMI cable must have a bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps, meaning that it can transmit 10.2 billion bits of digital information per second.” Compl. ¶ 27.' … Perez, these labels “have no established standard or meaning.”

Nguyen v. Stephens Institute

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 2023

A plaintiff must 21 clearly allege facts demonstrating each element. … It is unclear whether Plaintiff would be 23 qualified to receive reimbursement for course fees as he failed to request reimbursement.

Dellums v. Smith

573 F. Supp. 1489 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 1983

Plaintiffs "ask only that the court review the government’s own enforcement effort against the standards established by the [statutory scheme] ... … The Ethics in Government Act prohibits the Attorney General from convening grand juries, plea bargaining, granting immunity or issuing subpoenas in connection with a preliminary investigation. 28 U.S.C. § 592 (a)(2).