Case law

Gay v. Shaffer

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2024

Aug. 9, 2006) (finding that the anticipated litigation date was established when a potential 18 claim is identified); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1346–47 (Fed. … If Defendants were correct, then every party which did not personally engage in 27 sanctionable conduct would be immune from imputed responsibility

Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff

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

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 25 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Additionally, plaintiff should not name any defendant who is linked solely in his 3 respondent superior capacity or against whom plaintiff cannot allege facts that would establish 4 supervisorial liability.

Escobar-Lopez v. City of Daly City

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

LEGAL STANDARDS 17 The standards governing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are well-established. See 18 McLellan v. … Second, the fact that individual officers may have a defense to liability, such as 26 qualified immunity, does not prevent the city or county from

U.S. Inspection Services, Inc. v. NL Engineered Solutions, LLC

268 F.R.D. 614 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 12, 2010

In order to qualify for work product protection under Rule 26(b)(3), documents *626 must possess two characteristics: (1) they must be “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” and (2) they must be prepared “by … Based on the description of the email, its date of creation, and the identity of its author, the Court finds this email is a “single purpose” document that was clearly created because of the pending litigation.

Tradeshift, Inc. v. BuyerQuest, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 2021

BuyerQuest argues 17 Smucker’s deposition testimony establishes that it was Smucker’s decision alone to terminate the 18 contract. … The vast majority of the portions sought to be sealed will not qualify for 18 sealing, and it is an open question if any of the identified material qualifies as sealable.

Linear Technology Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.

524 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 2005

Contrary to defendant's contentions, the burden is on Micrel to establish its affirmative defense for intervening rights. See Jazz Photo Corp. v. … International Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094 , 1102 (Fed.Cir.2001) (noting that although the patentee bears the initial burden of establishing infringement, the burden of establishing an affirmative defense is on the party raising

Guzman v. Pickett

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 6, 2021

Id. at 411. 18 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the Supreme Court’s 19 jurisprudence. … “[E]ven 15 clearly erroneous admissions of evidence that render a trial fundamentally unfair may not permit 16 the grant of federal habeas corpus relief if not forbidden by clearly established Federal law, as laid

(HC) Amburn v. Hill

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 28, 2023

Id. at 411. 7 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the Supreme Court’s 8 jurisprudence. … established federal law.

Magpayo v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 18, 2024

Magpayo 20 contends that this letter and label are distinguishable because the use of the word “Function” 21 clearly denotes a structure/function claim, and the label provided additional context indicating the 22 … In Gallagher, however, I expressly noted that: 6 Plaintiffs apparently argue that the heart and immunity claims also violate 21 C.F.R. § 101.14(a)(1). Oppo. at 8 & fn. 43.

Jenkins v. Eastern Capital Corp.

846 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 1994

This rule has been qualified by the proposition that one “who signs a document reasonably believing it is something quite different than it is cannot be bound to the terms of the document.” 737 F.2d at 1504 . … The written employment agreement herein clearly could not have constituted the entire agreement of the parties, as it lacked such terms as plaintiffs position and salary.

Carter v. National Railroad Passenger

63 F. Supp. 3d 1118 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2014

Code § 1714, providing that “[ejveryone is responsible ... for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person,” is not subject to “wholesale immunities … Here, the Court does not find evidence that establishes moral blameworthiness on any of these grounds.

Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Co.

67 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 15, 1999

In order to qualify for an ITP, a permit applicant must submit a conservation plan that includes, among other things, the steps an applicant will take to minimize and mitigate impacts on endangered species and alternative … PALCO’s application for an ITP therefore clearly contemplates an “agency action.”

Nguyen v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2022

Nguyen has submitted herself establishes that Mr. 23 Manasian did not give authorization. Specifically, Ms. Nguyen has provided a copy of an email 24 exchange between herself and Mr. … Nguyen’s email clearly indicated 14 that she wanted Mr. Manasian to sign an opposition brief for Nguyen DDS. That Mr.

Kirkorian v. Borelli

695 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 1988

Then, plaintiffs must establish the Title Company Defendants’ knowing and active participation in the scheme, sufficient to generate a duty of disclosure to the investors. … Given all of these factors establishing that this is hardly a “slam-dunk” case for plaintiffs, a settlement of approximately 25% of the dollars lost by plaintiffs is reasonable.

Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2022

a strong inference of scienter; and (3) there are insufficient allegations to 5 establish loss causation. … But the face of 27 the statement clearly indicates that the speaker, Defendant Coyle, was describing the variables that 1 for Zio XT.

Li

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 7, 2025

“To 14 accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible 15 evidence, the reasons for the [employment decision].” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255. … Plaintiff is a member of a protected group by virtue of her race, and was qualified for 4 her job, and was subject to adverse employment actions.

In re Iphone Application Litigation

6 F. Supp. 3d 1004 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 2013

ECF No. 249 at 22-23; Opp’n at 12-13; see also Oct. 31 Hr'g Tr. at 3:23-5:6 (counsel for Plaintiffs conceding that Plaintiffs have not sought to amend TAC to add Isabella as an ¡Device Plaintiff, but stating that she is "qualified … At the October 31 Hearing, Plaintiffs cited the Horvath Declaration in support of their claim that Apple required users to agree to an updated Privacy Policy in 2008, see id. at 23:3-11, but the Horvath Declaration clearly

Williams v. Koenig

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 15, 2021

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 8 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … 11 The elements of a cause of action under Title II of the ADA are: (1) the plaintiff is an 12 individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified

Sapan v. Safeway, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 29, 2025

The Ninth Circuit found that “[e]ven if 16 [plaintiff] received the . . . email [informing plan participants of the modification], he still did not 17 receive sufficient notice to establish consent.” Id. … Texts 20 regarding access to COVID-19 vaccines clearly fall within the FCC’s emergency purposes 21 exception. See Gabertan, 523 F.

Katz v. BMW of North America, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2019

Cal. 2007)). 4 Here, the Lease Agreement clearly states that the terms “you” and “your” refer to the 5 Lessor (the Dealer) or Lessor’s assignee, which is BMW FS. … The Tanner Consumer Protection Act, 11 codified in Section 1793.22, enabled manufacturers to establish an elective, prelitigation, 12 “qualified third-party dispute resolution process.