Case law

IML Sea Transit, Ltd. v. United States

343 F. Supp. 32 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 1972

In Alaska Steamship Co. v. … Similarly, in Sea-Land Service, Inc. v.

International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 34 v. Cargill, Inc.

372 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1974

Characterizing the retroactive pay award as one for back wages, the ILWU’s position is that the term “wag *809 es” includes fringe benefits, Puma v. Brandenburg, 324 F.Supp. 536, 544 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Inland Steel v. … NLRB v. Rice Lake Company, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 355 , 365 F.2d 888, 892 (1966); see also decisions of the National Labor Relations Board cited at 7-8 of plaintiff’s reply brief filed January 2, 1974.

Mayock v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

714 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 1989

by Board, September 27, 1979, page 115. … See also Marroquin-Manriquez v.

In Re: Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 26, 2022

X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2020 3 WL 718310, at *2 (N.D. Cal. … The material at issue was deemed “CONFIDENTIAL” by defendants and reflects 7 || minutes from meetings of Zuora’s Board of Directors and Board presentations and deliberations 8 || relating to key aspects of Zuora

Range Energy Inc. v. Hyliion Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2026

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). … (cleaned up); Chodos v. W.

Florida Citrus Packers v. STATE OF CAL., ETC.

545 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 1982

Train v. Colorado Public Interest Group, 426 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 96 S.Ct. 1938, 1942 , 48 L.Ed.2d 434 (1976); Heppner v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 665 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1981). … Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-47 , 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217-19 , 10 L.Ed.2d *221 248 (1973); Pacific Legal Foundation v.

Northern California River Watch v. Honeywell Aerospace

830 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2011

Baykeeper, Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 309 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2002). … Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.1996).

Brice v. Stinson

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 1, 2019

Express Co. v. … In Gingras v.

Gonzalez

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 24, 2025

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). … See DISH Network Corp. v.

Duke v. San Francisco Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 2021

Friedman v. … Bergene v.

Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 1, 2025

Lopez v. … Board of 10 Cnty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cnty. v.

Badham v. March Fong Eu

568 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 1983

See Scott v. … See Silver v. Brown, 63 Cal.2d 841 , 844 — 46, 48 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 409 P.2d 689 (1966) (maps and census tracts contained errors which constituted a departure from the legislative history); Legislature v.

Weller v. Scout Analytics, Inc.

230 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2017

Accordingly, the Board solicited outside financing proposals, including a proposal of acquisition by Servi-ceSource, which it accepted. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24. … See Compl. ¶ 22 (“In early December 2013, Scout and its Board predicted that it would be out of cash within the first quarter of 2014. So they solicited and received proposals for financing.”).

American Small Business League v. United States Small Business Administration

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

Brown.”5 Olson Decl. ¶ 7, Exs. F, 11 T; Benderson Decl. ¶ 15. SBA designated this as Request No. SBA-2020-01532 (“Request No. 12 1532”). Benderson Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. … Cal. v. Dep’t of Justice, 880 F.3d 473, 482-83 (9th 23 Cir. 2018) (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)).

Stewart v. United States

158 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 18, 1957

In California Trust Co. v. … Mazman v. Brown, 1936, 12 Cal.App.2d 272 , 55 P.2d 539 . However, the wife’s right to contest is not activated until the death of the insured husband, when the gift was completed.

Abm Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

237 F.R.D. 225 · District Court, N.D. California · May 25, 2006

See Jackson v. Bank, 902 F.2d at 1388 . Futility of proposed amendments is evaluated under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard. See Miller v. … See Miller v.

Clark v. Global TelLink Corp.

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

C 22-4972 JSC; 25 Clark v. Marin County District Attorney, et al., No. C 22-5557 JSC; Clark v. Board of Equalization, No. … Medical Board of California, et al., No. C 22- 6174 JSC; Clark v. Alameda Cty. Dep’t. of Child Protected Services, et al., No.

Sepatis v. City and County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2002

See Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 ; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir.1995). … See King v.

Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2022

Brack v. … And, although Carbon 9 Crest cites Delaware law allowing delegation of board authority, “California has recognized 10 the rule that the board cannot delegate its function to govern.” Kennerson v.

In Re Critical Path, Inc. Securities Litigation

156 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 2001

The Florida State Group consists of the Florida State Board of Administration (“FSBA”) and David Lewis (“Lewis”). … The motion to appoint the Florida State Board of Administration (“FSBA”) and David M. Lewis (“Lewis”) as co-lead plaintiffs and for, approval of their choice of lead counsel is granted in part and denied in part.