Case law

Woodward

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2026

The court overseeing the new case granted the 21 motion, concluding that the 1996 dismissal qualified as an acquittal that barred Woodward’s 22 retrial. Id. … Jurisdiction and Exhaustion 18 Different habeas avenues are available depending on the nature of the petitioner’s custody. 19 Here, it is undisputed and clearly established that Woodward

Joshua Miller v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 2025

By contrast, direct evidence “typically consists of clearly sexist, racist, 23 or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the employer.” Coghlan v. Am. … To establish a prima facie case of 17 discrimination, Plaintiff must prove: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was 18 qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) some

Jane Roe #1 v. Mill Valley School District, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2026

That establishes that the District is subject to a 5 regulatory scheme, not that it controlled McDonough’s or DeChellis’s conduct. … The doctrine immunizes a party’s own petitioning and conduct incidental to it, including a defendant’s conduct in 25 defending a suit. Sosa v.

Dragu v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan for Active Participants

144 F. Supp. 3d 1097 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 16, 2015

2013 SPD’s exclusion of “prosthetic rehabilitation of dental implants” and noted that the Plan’s “maxillofacial and oral surgeon consultant” reviewed the file and agreed that the placement of crowns and abutments did not qualify … As there is nothing in the record establishing whether Dr. Shuken is a Blue Shield Preferred Provider or an Out-of-N etwork provider, this issue is remanded to the insurer for additional fact development. D.

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2024

There, the 22 defendant moved under Rule 16 to add a qualified immunity defense after summary judgment. 23 Farnan, 654 F.3d at 982. … Whether the Finjan License may be used for an independent counterclaim is 21 a matter of contract interpretation, and Intel’s counterclaim is not clearly meritless.

Nehmer v. United States Veterans' Administration

712 F. Supp. 1404 · District Court, N.D. California · May 15, 1989

The Advisory Committee was established on March 4, 1985. … These sections of the Act do not clearly reveal congressional intent.

Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc.

71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 2014

The regulation explains: In such a multiunit operation some of the establishments may qualify for exemption, others may not. … The court recognized that the defendant’s position was “not without some merit” but concluded that the exemption did not apply because the plain language of the statute did not “clearly weigh in Defendant’s favor and because

Fuller v. Bloom Institute of Technology

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2023

The Court agrees. 2 Unlike defendants’ showing as to the amounts paid and owed under “fully vested ISAs and 3 RICs entered into between March 2020 and the present”—agreements which are clearly … The Court agrees. 13 “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in 14 controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v.

Villa v. Matteson

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 13, 2023

Only the Supreme 17 Court’s holdings constitute “clearly established federal law.” Taylor, 529 U.S. at 412. … Even if the 10 language ran counter to Gainer, Petitioner has not explained how using that language is an 11 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Petersen v. Clark

289 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 1968

That letter appears clearly distinguishable from the letter in Miller . It specifically directs Petersen’s local board to determine whether there was a “change in circumstances”. … The court further finds, applying solely the criterion of 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 as it applies to the registrant’s beliefs, that the board was justified 3 in not reopening because plaintiff did not in fact establish a change

Herson v. City of San Carlos

714 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2010

Neither party, however, clearly addresses whether the City was entitled to restrict the size and height of pole signs in the manner it chose. … There is a separate section of the San Carlos Municipal Code that permits the granting of a variance upon a qualifying application.

In Re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litigation

505 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, N.D. California · May 29, 2007

In the context of an overtime statute, this sentence clearly conveys the legislature’s intent that, other than in the case of specific enumerated exceptions, a shift of more than eight hours of consecutive work qualifies … Therefore, to the extent that the DLSE’s opinion that “[t]he beginning of an employee’s workday need not coincide with the beginning of that employee’s shift, and an employer may establish different workdays for different

Chenette v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2019

On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject 9 matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the existence of 10 subject matter jurisdiction. Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., LLC v. … Further, the October 2014 Letter clearly identified the tax year at issue; and 7 in the words of the United States, it contained “a detailed explanation as to why Ms.

Rosenfeld v. United States Department of Justice

761 F. Supp. 1440 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 1991

Thus the ease at bar clearly is distinguishable from Keys v. United States Dept of Justice, 830 F.2d 337 (D.C.Cir.1987). … This is clearly a case in which what began as a colorable claim based on scant evidence ceased to be a colorable claim as the evidence accumulated.

Oxley v. Madrigal

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2023

Gamble, 429 21 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (establishing that deliberate indifference requires more than 22 negligence). … Title II 8 protects “a qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

Sender v. Franklin Resources, Inc.

931 F. Supp. 2d 959 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2013

Sender relies on the italicized language above to support his claim that, “once an ERISA qualified retirement plan has been terminated, ... … Aug. 7, 2009) (stating that “Beck in no way suggests that plan administrators who breach fiduciary duties during the life of a plan are somehow immunized from liability once the plan terminates[;] [i]ndeed, such a conclusion

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2013

In dismissing that cause of action, the Court gave Plaintiffs “leave to amend to clearly plead a federal violation with supporting factual allegations.” Id. at 26 . … Therefore, to establish standing under the UCL a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that the economic injury was the result

Dinan v. SanDisk LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 22, 2020

App. 4th at 18 579 (“In deeming qualifying odometers ‘correct,’ section 12500, subdivision (c) ‘clearly 19 permit[s]’ their design.”). … Although these statutes may not, on their own, suffice to establish a 5 safe harbor, they support the Court’s conclusion that the base-10 measure of “gigabyte” is “clearly 6 permitted” under California law.

Green v. Loggins

461 F. Supp. 24 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 1978

) (“Not merely a lineup but any pretrial confrontation must be scrutinized for its fairness, [citing Wade ] That a pretrial confrontation is unintentionally unfair or even accidental in its occurrence does not render it immune … Thus’ a defendant who establishes that the pretrial confrontation violated due process also establishes the lack of an independent source for the in-court identification. See N.

Rogers v. NationsCredit Financial Services Corp.

233 B.R. 98 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 1999

As the party seeking class certification, the burden is on Plaintiff to establish a prima facie showing of each of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to establish an appropriate ground … If anything, the law questions whether a Trustee even qualifies as an “individual” eligible to bring suit under § 362. 5 3. Rogers states a claim for violation of the discharge.