Case law

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

Brownback v. AppLovin Corporation

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

The Ninth Circuit interprets the PSLRA as 16 establishing “a simple three-step process for identifying the lead plaintiff pursuant to these 17 criteria.” Id. … The Pension Funds represent that they are 9 qualified, experienced, and able to conduct the litigation, and that their interests are aligned with 10 those of other class members and are not antagonistic in any way.

Garcia v. Lizarraga

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 25, 2021

No. 19-1 at 3-4. 19 No clearly established Supreme Court precedent addresses when a trial in state court must 20 be severed for multiple defendants. See Martinez v. Yates, 585 F. … But the Ninth Circuit has held this footnote “does not qualify as 26 clearly established federal law under federal habeas law.” Collins v.

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

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2021

Plaintiff claims that the “Oral Board” put in place by 6 one of SCCOE’s senior management staff discriminated against her by deeming her not qualified 7 and eliminating her from the eligibility list for the Assistant … of action for 3 negligent infliction of emotional distress would be barred by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 4 California Government Claims Act, and Dewan would also be entitled to Eleventh Amendment 5 immunity

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

Goodworth Holdings Inc. v. Suh

239 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 2002

Major, fundamental, essential terms of their agreement, however, *957 were clearly- undecided. Mr. … Suh to a qualified investment banker (Ainsworth Aff. (10-17-00) ¶ 9). No reasonable jury would belive that Dr.

Banda v. John Deere

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

(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 (citation omitted)). 1 the Daubert standard unless he is ‘convinced that it speaks clearly and directly to an issue in 2 dispute in the case.’” Id. … They argue that this problem is 6 compounded by the fact that Doherty did not conduct any testing to establish the actual speed the 7 Backhoe was moving, the time it would take for a person to climb out of a trench

Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

340 F. Supp. 3d 934 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2018

Huawei cannot legitimately claim that the challenged paragraphs do not qualify as vouching. … But neither case stands for the proposition that a challenge must clearly be labeled as one for "indefiniteness."

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin International, Inc.

782 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2011

the exercise of personal jurisdiction is unreasonable are “limited to the rare situation in which the plaintiffs interest and the state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute in the forum are so attenuated that they are clearly … D-Link Systems and ZyXEL U.S. argue that these end-users do not qualify as direct infringers for at least two reasons.

Noble v. Adams

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 2020

“[F]or purposes of AEDPA's ‘clearly 17 established Federal law’ requirement, it is ‘clearly established’ that a criminal defendant has a 18 right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and applied against the states through … At least, the state court could reasonably have found the 12 amendment, under the circumstances of the case, did not violate clearly established law. 13 6.

(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.

Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp.

753 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 2010

It is highly doubtful that Congress in establishing the FLSA certification procedure would have intended such perverse consequences. … in terms of education or training, rather than employment, although the employer may indicate that qualified graduates will be considered for employment.

MEZA v. Coty, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 24, 2023

It is the plaintiff's 19 burden to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in response to a 12(b)(1) 20 motion. See Kingman Reef Atoll Inv., LLC v. … The “who” is clearly Defendant. Compl. ¶ 8. 19 The “what” is the allegedly deceptive marketing statements. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4, 19. The “where” 20 is on Defendant’s Products’ front labels. Id. at 22.

Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

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

“The Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party 2 establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose.” Ochoa v. Cnty. of 3 Kern, 628 F. … “The Court will bar use of the evidence in 5 question only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any 6 valid purpose.” Ochoa v. Cnty. of Kern, 628 F.

United States v. Dondich

460 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 1978

The court appeared to view Piliaris’ participation in the criminal proceeding as a means by which to further the IRS civil investigation — a role clearly at odds with his duties as a prosecutor. … Even had the allegations in the complaint been substantial, Zanides’ absolute immunity as a public prosecutor would eliminate any motivation on his part to use the grand jury to gain advantage in the civil suit.

In Re Cirrus Logic Securities Litigation

946 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 1, 1996

One way to establish scienter is to show motive and opportunity. See In re Wells Fargo Sec. … Such evidence clearly falls within the definition of hearsay under Rule 801(e) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Cypress, 891 F.Supp. at 1374 . See also Larez v.

Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Telekenex, Inc.

913 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2012

Summers’ actions in destroying evidence may have been willful, there is no indication that he qualified as an insured under the Policy. Indeed, Axis appears to suggest that Mr. … While Northern clearly favors the Telekenex Defendants on Count V, it appears that Northern is no longer good law.

In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation

937 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2013

The Synchronoss court rejected those claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged anything that “can qualify as a statement falsely indicating that Synchronoss would be involved in activation of the iPhone 3G” nor … The reports clearly distinguish between information that came from Chan and the respective analyst’s own beliefs.

Jurado v. Ramirez

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2021

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“There is no legitimate claim of 15 entitlement to a grievance procedure.”). 16 Second, to establish a claim for violation of the right of