Case law

Redmond v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 2022

Regarding 18 Redmond’s remaining requests, Redmond fails to establish any legal or factual basis for the 19 requests. … In order to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirement, Redmond must amend the FAC 24 to state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to each cause of action and explain why each 25 named defendant is being sued

In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation

66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 4, 2014

The Court does not find that Krottner and Clapper are clearly irreconcilable. … Although Section 1798.84 does not define what qualifies as an injury under the statute, other courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that an injury that satisfies Article Ill’s injury-in-fact standard suffices to establish

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

881 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2012

Samsung may be right that the record does not establish any bad faith on its part. But bad faith is not the required mental state for the relief Apple seeks. … The qualifier, "unless a business resolution can be reached,” is of course true of virtually all litigation amongst commercial competitors, and for that reason is not at all determinative. . Id. . Id. .

Coholan

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 2026

material” instead of referring to a “system 2 which potentially qualifies for trade secret protection.” … There, “[t]he evidence clearly show[ed] that the janitorial business does not 2 depend upon patrons whose work can be done at an exceptionally low cost.” Id. at 16.

Anderson v. City of San Francisco

169 F. Supp. 3d 995 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2016

At the hearing, Plaintiff conceded that the other incidents in her FAC and briefing do not constitute actionable discrimination because they did not involve a qualifying adverse employment action. 1. … Plaintiff argues that her requested amendment will streamline the process and will avoid separate litigation on cases that would clearly overlap.

Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. Cnty. of Alameda

338 F. Supp. 3d 995 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 4, 2018

The record clearly establishes the presence of all elements for Younger abstention. First, the FAC specifically alleges that the County's administrative abatement proceedings are ongoing. E.g. , FAC ¶¶ 21-23, 27-27. … Nor was it necessary for the County to file a counterclaim to establish that Plaintiffs' Signs were not compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.

Sage v. County of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2024

FAC ¶¶ 70, 73. 17 The Court agrees that providing services can be sufficient consideration to support 18 establishment of a leasehold interest in property. See Cal. Civ. … But in order to qualify as “consideration,” 23 the benefit conferred (or prejudice suffered) “must actually be bargained for as the exchange for 24 the promise.” Prop. California SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy, 25 Cal.

Gomez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 8, 2021

immunity. 24 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are both meritless and unexhausted, and, therefore, does not 25 find it necessary to address Defendants remaining arguments. 26 1. … Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence establishing that any of the 1 create a triable issue of fact.

Wilson v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 12, 2021

Flight attendants seem like the prime example of employees who would qualify for such an exemption. … Here, SkyWest has established a good faith defense that precludes liability.

Tavantzis v. American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 7, 2025

Once 25 qualified in a specific area, the expert’s opinion must fall within their area of expertise. … That is clearly 22 sufficient under Civil Procedure Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ.

Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc.

242 F. Supp. 3d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2017

I agree with plaintiffs that FAS’s documents clearly establish that it retained the right to control the vendors. The VQPs contain an at-will termination provisions, which is “strong evidence” of a right to control. … Of the 680 vendors, plaintiffs claim that 48 are clearly in the class, while 30 are excluded. Mot. to Decertify at 7.

Kohn v. State Bar of California

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2020

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 4 establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer 5 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that [3] the balance … Given the standard required to enter a mandatory 25 injunction, the facts do not clearly favor plaintiff and he has not established that he is 26 likely to succeed on the merits of his Title II ADA claim.

Lopez v. Lake County Jail

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … States clearly and simply each claim he seeks to bring in federal court as 26 required under Rule 8, and he should: 27 i.

Ena L. Mitchell v. City of Soledad

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 2026

A case arises under federal law “‘if a well-pleaded 1 complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right 2 to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial … Federal Question Jurisdiction 17 Mitchell alleges violations of her Constitutional rights throughout her Amended 18 Complaint, though does not clearly set forth specific causes of

Tolbert v. Holland

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

immunity and 26 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. … See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. 25 Because the Court finds no constitutional violation, it need not reach Defendants’ 26 qualified immunity argument. Dkt.

Clark v. California

739 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2010

Dep’t of Corrs., 115 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir.1997) (“The use of a library is, equally clearly, an activity, and so, only a little less clearly, is the use of the dining hall.”); Chase v. … Leone, who was selected and agreed upon by both parties, is highly qualified to serve as an expert. Id.

Magana-Torres v. Borla

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 29, 2025

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 13 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the 23 allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not 24 “plausibly” establish the supervisors’

Storms v. County of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 8, 2022

Was Storms Otherwise Qualified to do His Job? 22 Storms next moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether he was 23 otherwise qualified to do his job. ECF 48 at 20. … But the Evaluation also 18 includes compliments like: “he is clearly capable,” “Rick is very good at legal research,” 19 “he is always willing to cover a court on short notice,” and he “is pleasant with staff and 20

Maureen Harrington, et al. v. Pinterest, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2026

, and 7 Harrington failed to respond with facts establishing a genuine issue for trial. 8 3. … representation of the parties’ burdens, but upon the Court’s review, it appears the Ninth Circuit has 3 not explicitly joined the Second Circuit on this point. 4 In 2017, the Ninth Circuit in Mavrix clearly

In Re Data General Corp. Antitrust Litigation

490 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 7, 1980

realleges its good will and market response justifications in support of the CPU-memory tie-in. 126 Again the Court finds that, even if the jury were to accept Data General’s evidentiary support, it would not be permitted to immunize … As noted in section IV,B,1, supra, the law clearly permits (but does not require) a presumption of economic power based on the existence of copyright protection.