Case law

Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.

273 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 4, 2011

“This factor requires: (1) that the proposed representative Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed class, and (2) that Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel.” … On the con *580 trary, Jani-King’s promotional materials and required franchise documentation clearly state that Jani-King does not make profit predictions.

Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

520 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 1981

Plaintiffs rely on the same evidence (discussed above) that they used to establish a conspiracy to fix prices. … Thus, at least some agreements that would otherwise be condemned as price fixing were intended to be immune when engaged in by insurance companies.

Mosgrove v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · May 20, 2025

Instead, he has pled all the facts necessary to establish probable 4 cause. Here, the MHPD Officers arrested Plaintiff based on the report by Ms. Mosgrove that Plaintiff 5 “had pushed [Ms. … In NAACP, the Court found 2 that whether the police officers falsely arrested plaintiffs based on a curfew order was a qualified 3 immunity issue that required an evidentiary record. NAACP, 562 F. Supp. 3d at 404.

Camp v. Alexander

300 F.R.D. 617 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 2014

Defendants cite the high bar for establishing that a coercive situation exists, quoting Burrell v. Crown Cent. … It noted that the assertion that “they [plaintiffs’ counsel] are interested solely in a payoff ... while not unusual and fairly clearly an opinion is still problematic.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Geotek

426 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 11, 1976

APPLICABLE LAW — APPROPRIATENESS OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF In addition to determining whether the SEC has established the requisite degree of culpability in an SEC enforcement action, it is clearly established that, in such an … If the legal standard applicable in SEC statutory enforcement cases were not still an open question, and if “scienter” (i. e., intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud) was clearly established as an essential element in an

Revels v. Marin County Jail

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2025

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 The Court finds that there are compelling reasons to grant the request to file under seal. 12 The need to protect medical privacy qualifies … immunity because no case 4 establishes that “Defendants, as jail custodial and medical staff, had an obvious and sua sponte 5 duty under the Eighth Amendment to force any inmate who claims to have epilepsy to be housed

Brady v. Conseco, Inc.

270 F.R.D. 521 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2010

The fact that they are familiar with the basis for the suit and their responsibilities as lead plaintiffs is sufficient to establish their adequacy. … The notice must clearly explain each party’s position with respect to absent class members’ right to benefit from the settlement. 11.

Edd King v. National General Insurance Company

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

MTS at 8. 1 defendant is established.” Kamar v. RadioShack Corp., 375 F. … These claims require Plaintiffs to establish elements that are not 14 contained in the class definition.

Kitchen v. City of San Leandro

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 2022

Plaintiffs have not clearly 24 alleged whether Taylor had a disability under option (A), (B), or (C). 25 Courts generally require that a party who alleges that he or she is disabled under the ADA 26 “plead … Supp. 3d at 1137. 26 Because Plaintiffs do not identify any qualifying disability, they fail to establish the first 27 element of their ADA claim.

Cathy v. Kuzmicz

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

Ryan, 856 F.3d 1265, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017) (Nordstrom II) (on appeal after 3 remand of Nordstrom I, holding that prison policy requiring officials to confirm that 4 outgoing letters qualified as legal mail failed to … But again, prison officials may establish that legitimate 6 penological interests justify the policy or practice.

Spatz v. Regents of the University of California

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2022

Motions to strike are generally disfavored and “should not be granted unless 7 the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation. … The Albee court determined earlier in the decision that the Eleventh 4 Amendment provided immunity to the organization defendant (i.e., Board of Trustees of the 5 California State University) and thus did not consider

Opiotennione v. Facebook, Inc.

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

Plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden 24 of establishing the existence of Article III standing and, at the pleading stage, “must clearly [] 25 allege facts demonstrating each element … the particular jobs subject to Defendants’ allegedly discriminatory practices” 24 to establish injury in fact); compare with White v.

P.G. v. Alameda Unified School District

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 28, 2022

Simun’s testimony is clearly relevant to the dispute because it relates 2 to whether the plaintiff’s preferred psychologist, Dr. … Carina Grandison, was qualified under the 3 Special Education Local Plan Area’s policies. Of course, even though the new testimony is 4 relevant it may be improper cumulative evidence. In this regard, Dr.

Okinawa Dugong v. Mattis

330 F. Supp. 3d 1167 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2018

To qualify for this category, an individual or organization must submit a written request for the agency's consideration. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.3 (f)(3). … Plaintiffs have not established what would have been gained had Defendants pursued their own, separate public notice-and-comment.

LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2023

Heart[,] Immune[, and] Digestion,” “our most advanced nutritional product,” and “All-in-One 17 blend to support your health.” Id. at *8 (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b)(2)(ii)). … Quaker Oats Labeling Litig., 20 2012 WL 1034532, at *4 (holding that “all the nutrition of a bowl of instant oatmeal” statement 21 was not preempted because the FDA “requires that food to which the comparison is drawn qualify

Williams v. County Of Monterey

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

Such insight could be relevant to a 24 determination whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Auker, 700 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012) 26 (“[I]n a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘the plaintiff carries the ultimate burden of 27 establishing each element of his or her claim.’” (quoting Pavao v.

Senegal v. White

881 F. Supp. 1421 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 8, 1995

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that “[a] district court’s findings regarding purposeful *1427 discrimination in the jury selection process will not be disturbed unless clearly errone ous.” … Petitioner argues that the trial court should not have admitted Brook’s statement, “you should have popped him when you had the chance,” because it did not qualify as a co-conspirator statement.

Moffett v. Benefield

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 2022

A court will grant summary judgment “against a party 5 who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 6 party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of … Moffett’s claim is Heck-barred, see id. at 13-15; and Defendant 15 Benefield is entitled to qualified immunity, see id. at 15-17. The Court agrees that Mr.

Prakash

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 29, 2026

Wash. 2024) (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure 23 to state a claim, service of process, and appointment of counsel); Alexander v. … 7 A prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA requires the plaintiff to provide 8 evidence that: (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified

Kiyoi

District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2026

IFP status, it must screen the complaint and dismiss the action 25 if it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 26 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Nor are the allegations that the NXP and Garda 10 World Defendants provided the Officers with information sufficient to establish action under color 11 of state law. See Manda v.