Case law

The Latino Medical Student Association-Northeast, et al. v. Flipcause, Inc., et al.

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

_____________________________________ 23 Denisse Guevara Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown … Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. 4 Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 37 (2020). 5 Accordingly, this case is automatically stayed pursuant to section 362(a).

Morvant v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

870 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, N.D. California · May 7, 2012

Public Policy Based on the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. … Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 527-534, 529, n. 9 , 104 S.Ct. 1188 , 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984) (‘While the Board’s interpretation of the NLRA should be given some deference, the proposition that the Board’s interpretation

Rai v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

308 F.R.D. 245 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2015

See Lopez v. G.A.T. … Co. v.

Ellis v. San Francisco State University

136 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2015

Pertinent Statutes and Regulations: Section 43404 was promulgated by the Board of Trustees of the California State Universities, pursuant to California Government Code Section 89030, which gives the Board of Trustees authority … The Ninth Circuit casé Fleming v.

Tamrat v. Rhodes

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2021

California v. … Presentation of a 13 written claim and action on or rejection of the claim by the Government Claims Board are 14 conditions precedent to suit. Cal. Gov't Code § 945.4; Mabe v.

Brunner, Jr. v. Lyft, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2019

Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc., 430 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2005). Lyft did not materially breach the arbitration agreement. … See Brown, 430 F.3d at 1012-13.

Fawcett v. Pacific Far East Lines, Inc.

76 F.R.D. 519 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 11, 1977

(“PFEL”), for the death of her husband while working as a crewman on board a vessel afloat in navigable waters and owned by PFEL. … Saus v. Delta Concrete Co., 368 F.Supp. 297, 298 (W.D.Pa.1973); McCune v. F. Alioto Fish Co., No. C-73-505-ACW (N.D.Cal., July 9, 1975); see Haskins v.

Hussey v. United States

271 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 24, 1965

On the dates shown in Exhibit A-Y (attached to complaint) the Temporary Authorities Board of the Commission issued orders granting the applications for periods not to exceed 180 days. 1 Various petitions for reconsideration … Co. v. United States, 245 U.S. 463, 466 , 38 S.Ct. 141 , 62 L.Ed. 400 ; United States v. Jones, 336 U.S. 641, 673 , 69 S.Ct. 787 , 93 L.Ed. 938 (1949). Cf. Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v.

City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System v. Align Technology, Inc.

65 F. Supp. 3d 840 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2014

(SAC ¶ 2) Defendant Prescott is and was at all relevant times the President and CEO of Align, as well as a member of Align’s Board of Directors. … Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.2006); see also Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010).

Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 18, 2020

No. 57 at 9-13 (citing Brown v. … Gas Co. v.

In re Quan Gin

61 F. 395 · District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 1894

The petition in this case alleges that Quan Gin is unlawfully restrained of his liberty on board the steamship Belgic, on the claim made by the master of the vessel that Quan Gin is not entitled to land, under the provisions … Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. 149 U. S. 713 , 13 Sup. Ct 1016.

United States v. Pacheco

27 F. Cas. 395 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 1856

The board confirmed the title to the land to the extent of two leagues; and the claimants assert that they are entitled to a confirmation of the tract granted by metes and bounds, and irrespective of quantity. … S. v.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Bush

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2021

Johnson v. Hui, 811 F. Supp. 479, 483 (N.D. Cal 1991). … .”); Kokocinski v.

Otico v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

229 F. Supp. 3d 1047 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 2017

Reich v. Parker Fire Prot. Dist., 992 F.2d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1993); see Woodruff v. Cnty. of San Diego In-Home Supportive Servs. Public Auth., No. D062180, 2014 WL 2861431 , at *23 (Cal. Ct. App. … See Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., 803 F.3d 1199, 1203, 1209-10 (11th Cir. 2015); Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528, 536 (2d Cir. 2015); McLaughlin v.

Intercoast Trading Co. v. McLaughlin

18 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 1936

In Rogers v. … Co. v. Board of Public Works (D.C.) 3 F.Supp. 791 (three judges); In re Clabby’s Estate, supra. In the Norfolk Ry.

Kahl v. Match Group, LLC

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

Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 72; see also Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. … See Forrest v.

Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2023

United States v. … United States v.

Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp.

191 F.R.D. 600 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2000

See Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp., 188 F.R.D. 577 (N.D.Cal.1999). Although seven law firms had sought to participate in the consortium, only one firm — Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri— submitted a bid. See Wenderhold v. … As the class recovery comparison shows, Innelli & Molder is the “high” bidder; the class stands to recover more under Innelli’s proposal almost across the board.

In re Certain Chinese Family Benevolent & District Ass'n

19 F.R.D. 97 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 1956

Co. v. … American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 , 44 S.Ct. 336 , 68 L.Ed. 696 ; Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134 , 48 S.Ct. 288 , 72 L.Ed. 500 ; Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v.

Duke v. San Francisco Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2021

Weil v. … Co. v. Superior Court, 155 Cal. App. 4th 27 1485, 1503 (2007) for this proposition, but that case does not even address the Brown Act. 1 this case.