Case law

Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2025

Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011). An 14 individual is domiciled in “her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or 15 to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. … Ziegler v.

Vivus, Inc. v. Kercso

977 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 1997

Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. U.S., 206 Ct.Cl. 756 , 514 F.2d 1041, 1047 (1975). In Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. … Kercso claims that he did not join Vivus as a board member or officer because he was still employed by Syntex.

American Finance & Commerce Co. v. United States

55 F.2d 725 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 1932

Respondent at the time of alleged damage owned and operated, by and through the United States Shipping Board, the steamer West Faralon. … C.) 10 F.(2d) 817 ; Monnier v. United States (D. C.) 16 F.(2d) 812 ; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272 , 13 L. Ed. 985 . Libelant’s witness, Mr.

NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC

355 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2005

See, e.g., Brown v. U.S., 86 F.3d 1554 , 1562 (Fed.Cir.1996). Because no Indian trust lands had been acquired during the period of time relevant to Plaintiffs claim, no leasing transactions had been instigated. … Cobell v. Norton, 246 F.Supp.2d 59, 62 (D.D.C.2003) (quoting Ryan v.

Ganz v. City of Belvedere

739 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 1990

Sederquist, supra, at 281 ; Rancho Palos Verdes Corp. v. City of Laguna Beach, 547 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir.1976); Canton v. Spokane School Dist., 498 F.2d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1974). … England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 421-22 , 84 S.Ct. 461, 467-68 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964); Sederquist, supra.

Emerson

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2026

LMI has ordered printed circuit boards from Multi-Flex for over a decade. SAC ¶ 8. 1 circuit boards. SAC ¶¶ 8–9. … Rubinstein v. Fakheri, 49 Cal. App. 5th 797, 809 10 (2020) (quoting Philpott v.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.

923 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1995

See College Entrance Examination Board v. … See SmokEnders, 184 U.S.P.Q. at 317 (citing Chicago Board of Trade v.

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2022

O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 22 530, 532 (9th Cir.1995). … Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 25 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994).

Boyle v. MTV Networks, Inc.

766 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 1991

In Franchise Tax Board, the Supreme Court applied these principles to a state law suit to enforce a levy. … Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co., 873 F.2d 1283, 1285 (9th Cir.1989); Young v.

Jones

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

Rule 4’s purpose “is ‘to eliminate the costs of service of a 18 summons on many parties and to foster cooperation among adversaries and counsel.’ ” Estate v. 19 Darulis v. … USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl Inc., 686 F.

Castillo v. O'Malley

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2025

Hoopai v. … v.

Feldman v. Simkins Industries, Inc.

492 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 1980

He was not a controlling shareholder, however; he did not even have representation on the board of directors and it is not contended that he had access to any non-public corporate information. … SEC v.

Concerned Jewish Parents of Sequoia Union High School District, et al. v. Sequoia Union High School, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 7, 2026

In 12 support of its position, Defendants cite Henson v. Turn, Inc., 2018 WL 5281629, at *5 (N.D. Cal., 13 Oct. 22, 2018). (Joint Letter at 5.) … House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho, 623 6 || F.3d 945, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kaahumanu v. Cnty.

Robert Lee Jenkins v. L.A. Martinez

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

In Swarthout v. … Pearson v.

Sternberg

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

See Coronavirus Rep. v. … See Buchheit v.

DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2024

Co., Ltd. 16 v. Dodots Licensing Sols. LLC, No. IPR2023-00621, 2023 WL 6633786 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2023); 17 Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Dodots Licensing Sols. LLC, No. … The standard is simplification of the district court case, not complete elimination of it 7 by the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 8 1036 (N.D.

Stockton Milling Co. v. California Navigation & Improvement Co.

165 F. 356 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 20, 1908

New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. 344, 382, 383 , 12 L. Ed. 465 . … Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 Fed. 180 , 36 C. C. A. 135 ; Phœnix Insurance Co. v. Eris Transportation Co., 117 U. S. 312 , 6 Sup. Ct. 750, 29 L. Ed. 873 ; Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v.

Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

82 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2015

(quoting Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 , 455 (3d Cir.2006)). … IN TENNESSEE, THIS APPLIES TO YOU: This collector agency is tensed by lira Collection Service Board of the Department of Commerce and insurance.

Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

281 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 21, 2003

See Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 , 44 S.Ct. 45 , 68 L.Ed. 159 (1923); Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463 , 44 S.Ct. 342 , 68 L.Ed. 792 (1924); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. … See A C Aukerman v.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fibreboard Products, Inc.

116 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 1953

Straw-bridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 , 2 L.Ed. 435 ; Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237 , 55 S.Ct. 162 , 79 L.Ed. 338 ; Dollar S. S. Lines, Inc., v. Merz, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 594 ; Mathers & Mathers v. … Teeter, D.C.N.D.Ill, 11 F.R.D. 180 ; Brown v. Ingraham, D.C.W.D.Pa., 11 F.R.D. 522 . But a defendant may not be added under that rule if such joinder would oust the court of jurisdiction. United States v.