Case law

Fanaro v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 15, 2019

Immunity 15 The County and the Sheriff’s Office first argue that the state law claims against them 16 should be dismissed with prejudice because they are immune from … The complaint clearly 25 pleads that Fanaro was a prisoner at the time the attack took place.

Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 2024

immunity. … Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (appeal of denial of qualified immunity divests district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial).

Shropshire v. Canning

809 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2011

As the Federal Circuit ruled, “whether an accused action is within the extraterritorial limitation should be treated as an element of the claim, not a predicate for subject matter jurisdiction, unless Congress has clearly … Id. at 990-91 (holding that where infringing videos were copied in New York and then transmitted abroad, copying the videos in New York qualified as a domestic act of infringement even though the transmissions were extraterritorial

Stuckey v. Risenhoover

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 3, 2020

“A 12 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 13 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of … A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) 16 may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney if: (1) it 17 clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified

Stuckey v. Trump

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2019

“A 12 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 13 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of … A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) 16 may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney if: (1) it 17 clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified

Studio 1220, Inc. v. Intralinks, Inc.

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

The Court also found that the first amended complaint “clearly ha[d] not done enough to adequately allege that [Intralinks]—the technology company that provided the software for Bank of America [] to process incoming PPP … Solutions’, that include ‘a single database application that provides comprehensive commercial loan management from initial request to final disposition’ and ‘manages all aspects of our clients’ loan process, including pre-qualifying

CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2009

A party asserting invalidity has the burden of establishing such by clear and convincing evidence. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2007). … A reasonable jury could not conclude other than that defendant has clearly and convincingly demonstrated claims 2 and 3 to be non-statutory.

Tolbert v. Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2025

against Defendant Murphy shall be 2 || dismissed without leave to amend. 3 Because the Court finds the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, it is 4 || unnecessary to consider Defendant’s qualified … immunity argument or dismissal under Rule 5 || 4€m). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sgt.

Nen Thio v. Genji, LLC

14 F. Supp. 3d 1324 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 7, 2014

Each Rule 23 claimant will be entitled to receive a payment from any of the three funds for which he or she qualifies. Id. ¶ 28 (f). … Further, each Rule 23 claimant will be entitled to receive a payment from any of the three funds for which he or she qualifies.

Stuckey v. Howard

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 2, 2020

“A 16 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 17 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of … In its 1 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a 2 defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation

253 F.R.D. 478 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 2008

The record shows (and this order so finds) that individual questions of impact would clearly predominate over the common ones. … For example, if individual customers qualify for volume discounts at some times but not others, the regression would need to take this into account.

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp.

772 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2011

However, it is well established that threats alone are an inherent injury to competition. U.S. v. … The Court concludes that Ritz has pled sufficient facts to establish an antitrust injury- 14 D.

Caldwell v. City of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2021

There is nothing in the record establishing that Caldwell had any training 11 or experience in construction management or insurance sales, and insufficient evidence that 12 Caldwell could have instantly qualified … Licudine and the other 20 cases cited by Caldwell only establish that damages for loss of earnings capacity can be awarded, 21 not that testimony like Cunniff’s is reliable to establish the amount of such damages.4

American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice

70 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2014

Attorneys are clearly acting as prosecutors, and' not as attorneys advising an agency client on the agency’s potential liability. … The Government did not meet its burden to establish that the remaining documents were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(E). IT IS SO ORDERED. .

Bynum v. Sweet

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 4, 2023

immunity. … It is therefore inadmissible under Rule 802. 16 With regard to Defendant’s second objection to Plaintiff’s opinion, it is sustained in 17 so far as Plaintiff is clearly not qualified to offer expert testimony

Jackson v. Bache & Co., Inc.

381 F. Supp. 71 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 1974

a reliance standard] is a reasonable one, for the aim of the rule is cases such as this is to qualify . . . the doctrine of caveat emptor — not to establish a scheme of investors’ insurance . . . … The above discussion of the factors to be considered in examining the duty question clearly indicates that there existed no duty running from Mitchell to the plaintiffs.

Cross

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

“To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must offer evidence that gives rise to an 13 inference of unlawful discrimination.” Cordova v. State Farms Ins. … CCCTA does not dispute Cross is a member of a protected class, 22 was qualified to do the job, and was subject to an adverse employment action. ECF No. 56 at 18– 23 22.

McGhee v. Broomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2020

The mail was clearly marked as legal mail and was addressed to plaintiff’s 19 attorney, Richard Braucher of the First Appellate District Project in Oakland, California. … Both of these factors must be 1 the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant would be better served with the 2 assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues involved as complex.

Ilc Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.

458 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 11, 1978

In addition, even if its prices were below the levels established by these tests, IBM has established the meeting competition defense. … Users clearly benefited from these product innovations and price cuts.

Loggins v. Leland Stanford Junior University

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2024

Loggins insists Defendants’ alleged adverse employment actions are “clearly 5 discriminatory” because Defendants did not investigate, suspend, or issue a public statement 6 regarding Stanford Law School Professor Bankman … of establishing a 17 prima facie case of retaliation[.]”).