Case law

Attia

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 17, 2026

Id. § 7.3. 17 The Protective Order establishes procedures for challenging AEO or confidentiality 18 designations. … Plaintiff requests that 26 the Court award him $35,246 in sanctions for Oura’s “clearly unjustified” AEO designations.

Cobarrubia v. Edwards

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2021

Cameron is qualified to testify as a use of force expert, and 25 that he is qualified to testify as to the reasonableness of the duration of the K9’s bite. 26 At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff stated that she … In Watkins, the Ninth Circuit found that the denial of qualified immunity 26 was proper on the issue of whether the duration of the bite-hold was

McDonald v. County of Sonoma

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

immunity.” … from liability if the unlawfulness of the conduct is not clearly established.”

Mula v. Mula-Stouky

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2022

“To establish a claim under the FDCPA, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 14 (1) plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt; (2) the 15 defendant qualifies as a debt … First, they argue that the proposed allegations against Bye would not establish a claim or 21 predicate act of perjury.

Goins v. United Parcel Service Inc

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 8, 2024

Plaintiff satisfies this factor. 26 Second, Goins argues that she was qualified to do her job. … Plaintiffs 4 argue that Goins and Jones-Jackson were qualified, but there is no argument (much less 5 citation to the record) that Lopez was qualified for her position.

Amy v. Curtis

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

The court overrules 25 the objection and continues to find that the Magistrate Judge’s protective order was not 26 clearly erroneous. … Additionally, given the poor 25 || quality of the photo, the presence of any substance on her face is not clearly 26 || ascertainable.

Brown v. Local No. 17, Amalgamated Lithographers

180 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 1960

The agreement was however, not so expressly qualified, and this issue, involving a question of fact, is found adversely to the union. … The legislative history clearly shows that it was not the intent of Congress to reject or alter these interpretations of secondary boycott prohibitions as expressed by the Courts.

In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.

293 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2018

Although the court noted the "qualifying language 'up to,' " the court did not rest its conclusion on that basis alone. Id. … These circumstances clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff Gorbatchev's Nexus 6P was unfit for ordinary use.

Delossa v. Riley

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

509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (“Ability to protect 4 the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the competence 5 of a layman representing himself to be clearly … Defendants have filed an administrative motion to modify scheduling orders and 20 establish a bellwether case. ECF No. 13.

Powers v. Covello

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2022

the State court proceeding.ˮ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. 4 Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–13 (2000). 5 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the … A state court 9 decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it “applies a rule that 10 contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or if it “confronts a set

Baptiste v. Hatton

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 26, 2019

, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 22 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … A temporary 14 restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s 15 attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified

LePage v. County of Napa

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2019

Whether qualified immunity applies. 12 2. … As such they are inadmissible 7 unless they qualify for their own exclusion or exception from the hearsay rule, e.g., as party 8 admissions or as qualifying under some other hearsay exception.”)

Storms v. County of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 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

Garcia-Guzman v. Reno

65 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1999

Thus, as the Court concluded, “[s]ection 1252(g) seems clearly designed to give some measure of protection to ‘no deferred action’ decisions and similar discretionary determinations ....” Id. … There is no indication that the IJ gave any consideration to factors militating in petitioner’s favor and establishing good cause.

Solorio v. Ducart

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2020

dismiss the complaint, or any portion 3 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … C 18-7708 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label the complaint “Second 23 Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form.

NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Group

140 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 2014

In other words, the defendants’ contention that NovelPoster gave them “unrestricted” access to the accounts is not as “clearly demonstrate^]” as they assert. See Reply 3,5. … Contrary to the defendants’ argument, the pleadings do not establish that Novel-Poster granted them “unrestricted acdess” to the accounts at issue. See Reply 3-4.

Baptiste v. Hatton

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2019

Nor do the cases and statutes cited by plaintiff establish a right to 17 counsel in this particular case. Neither the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act 18 governs this action. … Neither the need for discovery, nor the 3 fact that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily 4 qualify the issues involved as complex.

Sun Group U.S.A. Harmony City, Inc. v. CRRC Corporation LTD

District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 2024

Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926-27 (9th Cir. 1989), the Ninth Circuit 26 addressed a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity where all discovery had been 27 stayed pending the determination of this threshold issue. … In light of the bar on discovery, the court 1 thus required “some relaxation of the ordinary rules of admissibility in the case of affidavits used 2 to oppose qualified immunity motions. . . .

Sarmiento v. Marquez

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 2022

have to a 27 child, we are certain that it does not rise to the level of a fundamental liberty interest.” 1 Related to procedural rights in the dependency context, the Ninth Circuit 2 acknowledged there is a clearly … Plaintiffs do not plead 4 and cannot establish a deprivation of that right because, as de facto parents, they are not 5 entitled to its protections.2 Therefore, even if plaintiffs established that defendants’ 6

Robles

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 2026

Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) 1 a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when 2 his conclusion is ‘clearly established by medical evidence.’” … So, a reviewing court “must determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to 4 find that the medical evidence clearly established that [claimant] did not have a medically 5 severe impairment or combination of impairments