Case law

Treez, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2024

These petitions are clearly 21 within the scope of the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. … However, Defendants’ declarations regarding the production of these 20 records indicate that their understanding of what qualifies as “similarly situated” petitions has not 21 changed.

Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer

285 F.R.D. 481 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2012

“The 30(b)(6) notice establishes the minimum about which the witness must be prepared to testify, not the maximum.” Id. (citing Detoy, 196 F.R.D. at 366-67 ). 2. … Plaintiff is entitled to the knowledge of the corporation and the corporation’s positions on matters clearly relevant and discoverable in this phase of the ease.

Quinto v. The Regents of the University of California

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 2023

unpopular federal laws or federal officials’; (2) 2 ‘States hostile to the Federal Government may impede’ federal law; and (3) ‘States may deprive 3 federal officials of a federal forum in which to assert federal immunity … In each case, the private entity’s conduct was clearly related to a 15 federal policy or program, but not a specific obligation or responsibility that would traditionally 16 fall to the federal government, or that the

Stuckey v. California Departmnet of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 2021

Andrews II, 7 493 F.3d at 1056 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 In addition, the danger must be “clearly related to [the] initial complaint.” … Similarly, Stuckey’s allegations of “having COVID-19 symptoms,” 27 have already been established as coughing, diarrhea, and muscle at 1, ECF No. 15; Compl. at 19, ¶ 21, ECF No. 1.)

Lucus v. Koenig

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 21, 2020

Plaintiff’s allegations, therefore, are not 10 sufficient to establish that the NDPF expansion plan is otherwise invalid. See Procunier, 11 417 at 822-23. … Accordingly, it cannot be said that 4 Defendants are also liable for Plaintiff’s inability to request an ADA accommodation at 5 that time, even assuming that he qualified for it.

Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products Inc.

268 F.R.D. 330 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2010

The class members’ claims clearly have something vital to this case in common: all class members own a home in which one of Defendants’ fireplaces has been installed and their claims are based on a common theory of liability … Defendants argue that this declaration lacks the foundation necessary to qualify as an expert opinion.

Hostetler v. Wormuth

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 12, 2023

to establish discrimination.” … “To set 22 forth a prima facie disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is disabled 23 within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified (i.e., able to perform the essential functions

Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 2019

“Direct evidence is evidence, which, if believed, proves 26 the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption,” and it “typically 27 consists of clearly sexist, racist, or similarly discriminatory statements … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff 15 must allege that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her 16 position and performing her job satisfactorily; (3) she experienced

Ellis v. Harder Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2023

The notice must “clearly and concisely state in plain, 19 easily understood language” the nature of the action, the class definition, and the class members’ 20 right to exclude themselves from the class. Fed. R. … No later than 28 calendar days of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, 8 Defendant shall deposit into the Qualified Settlement Fund established by Phoenix Settlement 9 Administrators (“PSA”) the Maximum Settlement

Mccowen v. Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc.

311 F.R.D. 579 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2015

On that score, Trimac argues the record is insufficient to establish that it uniformly deprived its employees of their breaks. … McCowen also has retained counsel qualified sufficiently to ensure vigorous prosecution of this litigation.

Kale

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 11, 2026

Upon making the required investments, an applicant may file an I-526E petition, which, if approved, establishes eligibility for an EB-5 visa. … If Congress had intended to confer unfettered discretion to USCIS to decline adjudication of adjustment-of-status applications, it would have said so more clearly.

American Small Business League v. United States Small Business Administration

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 2022

FOIA is “broadly 24 conceived” and favors “full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly 25 delineated statutory language.” Yagman v. … News Media Representative 1 In order to qualify for a fee reduction under subclause (II), ASBL also must establish

UnifySCC v. Cody

District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2025

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs have presently failed to 8 establish that they did. … However, standing will 13 clearly be an issue for each Plaintiff who goes forward in the case. Moreover, the above 14 discussion previews the following sections of this Order.

Chand v. Regan

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 26, 2024

See id. at 1095 (“Direct evidence typically consists of 7 clearly sexist, racist, or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the employer.” (citations 8 omitted)). … The temporal proximity of Chand’s 19 FMLA extension request could establish an interference that her leave was a motivating factor for 20 the latter, but the temporal proximity is not enough to establish but-for causation

Meier v. City of Brisbane

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

These provisions 21 may in fact impose mandatory duties, but the FAC and opposition brief do not clearly establish 22 that they do. … Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 19 271 (1981) (holding municipalities are immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); 20 Cal.

(PC) Knowles v. Goodnight

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

review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The Court 24 also advised Plaintiff that he could not proceed with a conspiracy claim against Defendants 25 unless he first established an underlying constitutional violation and a meeting of the 26 minds.

RocketPower, Inc. v. Strio Consulting, Inc.

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

Nuro required 4 that job applicants successfully complete a background check; ones with driving-related 5 offenses would not qualify. Id. ¶¶ 23–24. … Although a 7 “contract with an out-of-state party alone . . . clearly cannot” establish the required 8 minimum contacts, the “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along 9 with the terms of the

Bostwick v. SN Servicing Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2023

Loll’s allegedly not being a “custodian or [other] qualified 11 witness” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)(D). But Mr. Loll is a qualified 12 witness under that rule. United States v. … to the property. 3 In its reply brief, Seterus also argues that the plaintiffs “are judicially estopped from relying on 4 any evidence concerning the use of the [Truckee] [p]roperty, after loan origination, to establish

In Re Bare Escentuals, Inc. Securities Litigation

745 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2010

Plaintiffs, by contrast, respond that the court should reject defendants’ argument that they are not § 12(a)(2) “sellers,” because defendants’ combined actions clearly establish “solicitor seller” status. … In support of their conclusion that defendants qualify as “sellers,” plaintiffs rely on paragraphs 38-47, 56, 29, 71, 72, and 81.

Gunther v. North Coast Cooperative, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 2020

As stated 16 above, the CBA must meet § 514 requirements for all covered employees to qualify for exemption 17 from § 510. … Additionally, Plaintiff’s (and putative class members’) employment at a 25 grocery store is clearly outside of the exempted employment set forth in § 514(f).