Case law

Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 20, 2023

leave to amend. 9 4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 10 Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 11 immunities … Nor does the 2 complaint assert any facts establishing any plausible connection between the California State Bar 3 and the TAI defendants’ alleged interference with Mr.

Peters v. Madden

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2023

The only definitive 20 source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is in the holdings (as opposed 21 to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of the state court decision. … A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry 6 should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively 7 unreasonable.” Id. at 409.

Ghafoori v. Bank of America Home Loans

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 13, 2024

Their RESPA and Regulation X claims “clearly appear[]to be immaterial 8 and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. … Cal 2013) regardingamortgage servicer’s duty to establish a single point of contact with theborrower.

Guzman v. Jones

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

, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 23 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … false and procedurally inadequate February 8, 2018 Form 128-B; John Doe 9 classification staff representative who, on February 14, 2018, approved the transfer based on the 10 clearly false February 8, 2018 Form 128

Humes v. Cali Hiway Patrol

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 27, 2024

A court will grant summary judgment 18 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 19 element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden … immunity argument.

Adams v. San Francisco FBI

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2023

review, the court must identify any 25 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Furthermore, even if the 13 property was seized pursuant to a warrant, Plaintiff may still not be able to state a claim 14 because there is no clearly established law as to whether or not officers violate the Fourth

MasterObjects, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2023

L.R. 79-5). 16 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 17 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 18 … Moreover, the request is clearly not narrowly tailored.

Ross v. County of Lake

District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2025

arrestees—had security procedures, for example, 5 that the DNA sample cannot be placed in a database until the individual is arraigned and “a 6 judicial officer ensures there is probable cause to detain the arrestee on a qualifying … King, the answer is clearly yes.” Id. (citation omitted). 18 King and Haskell involved individuals arrested for felony offenses. In this case, Mr. Ross 19 does not allege on what grounds he was arrested.

Bush v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 2020

claim that was 15 adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim: 16 “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, 17 clearly … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; 18 or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in 19 light of the evidence presented

LD v. United Behavioral Health

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 2022

documents; 2) March 25, 2022 – 143 27 documents; 3) April 12, 2022 – 643 documents; 4) April 29, 2022 – 837 documents; 5) June 1, 1 product immunity … On the other hand, the mere possibility that litigation may occur is usually 21 not sufficient to qualify a communication as defensive.” L.D. v. United Behav.

Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc.

282 F. Supp. 3d 1115 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2017

Qualifying its MAU growth, Twitter explained that its newer users were "lower quality" than existing users, and therefore less likely to become DAUs. … for capitalization...or the project itself did *1147 not qualify as internaluse software" as those facts were not "especially prominent").

Tamboura v. Singer

District Court, N.D. California · May 29, 2020

The bribed coach would bypass other qualified student-athlete 3 17 || candidates and insert Singer’s candidates into the athletic “slots” even though Singer’s applicants 18 did not “qualify as persons excelling … Plaintiffs thus have 5 || not established that they suffered from an injury-in-fact.

Whalen v. NBA Properties, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2025

It clearly warns users, “By clicking ‘Agree and 8 Subscribe’ you acknowledge that you have read and agree to the Subscriber Agreement.” 9 Id. … Subscriber Agreements 18 The 2022 and 2023 Subscriber Agreements hyperlinked through the billing info 19 page qualify as sign-in wrap agreements, a form of online contract where

Kempf

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

Dismissal for this reason is only appropriate 5 when “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish … Utah, the United States Supreme Court established that 25 “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all 26 asserted members of the class who would have been parties had

Magana-Munoz v. West Coast Berry Farms, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

of a judicial officer from civil iil7 liability when acting in the capacity of an arbitrator, which immunity supplements any other existing immunity. … The FAA establishes a 2 || “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 3 1621 (2018).

Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd.

460 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 2006

As for Capitol’s Rule 9(b) argument, plaintiffs argue that Capitol is not immune from deliberate lies. It cites no authority in support. … They also contend that NCB shares were not traded on an exchange, and that “market value” has not yet been established.

Rampton v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Ins. Co.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 29, 2024

Ill. 1981) (ordered disclosure of work product relating to ERISA 14 trustees’ investment decisions, “lest the work-product immunity swallow up the [fiduciary] 15 exception in its entirety”); see also Mett, 178 F.3d … Roldan’s] eligibility for benefits that 22 were established by the employer.”

Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2020

The party invoking the court’s jurisdiction bears 9 the burden of establishing that it is proper. See id. … Thus, even if the court had original jurisdiction over some of 2 plaintiff’s claims, the other allegations do not clearly derive from a common nucleus of 3 operative facts such that they would be expected to be tried

Johnson v. Techbusiness Resources, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2020

determined that jurisdictional dismissals are warranted “where the alleged claim under the 1 2 Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to … The parties do not 8 dispute that Old Floors qualifies as a place of public accommodation under section 12182(a). 9

Snarr v. Cento Fine Foods Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2019

19 next to the representations it qualifies”); Sponchiado v. … of the Products and 27 specifically allege that each Lead Plaintiff purchased the Products from a few grocery stores, 1 language does not clearly