Case law

Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.

312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2004

The parties have not squarely confronted whether state or federal law applies to the question of a parent corporation’s liability for the subsidiary’s actions in this case, and the answer to the question does not emerge clearly … The policy which permits individuals to do business by the organization of corporations permits corporations, authorized to do so, to do business in the same way and with the same immunities from liability.

Velasquez, Jr. v. City of Hayward

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

person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 13 regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . ., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . person . 14 . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Supp. 3d at 26 938 (finding plaintiff established first element of Bane Act claim based on § 1983 claims).

Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 2024

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 26 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … any SQSP defendant who is linked solely in his or her 16 respondent superior capacity or against whom Sheldon cannot allege facts that would establish

Mediostream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

869 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 23, 2012

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a defendant “actively misled” him and that he had “neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts constituting [his] claim for relief … Several recent decisions have found that the CUTSA preempts' claims based on the alleged taking of “confidential information,” even if such information does not qualify as a trade secret. See Mattel, Inc. v.

C.G. v. SSA Commissioner

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2026

(cleaned up); Pinto v. 1 conclusion is “clearly established by medical evidence.” Webb, 433 F.3d at 687 (quoting Titles II 2 & XVI: Med. Impairments That Are Not Severe, SSR 85-28 (S.S.A. 1985)). … Don 18 Purcell, M.D., conducted a psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluation of Plaintiff on September 24, 19 2021, and submitted a medical opinion in conjunction with this evaluation.

Gaddis v. Moseley

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 9, 2024

Gaddis argues that his central file “clearly state[d] that Plaintiff Gaddis was assigned medical [illegible] such as a wheelchair and crutches.” Opp. at 10. Mr. … Consequently, for deliberate indifference to be established, there must 24 exist both a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and harm resulting 25 therefrom.

Slack v. International Union of Operating Engineers

83 F. Supp. 3d 890 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2015

Meanwhile, the employees of *902 its alter ego, Santa Fe — whose work qualifies them to be Local 3 operating engineers subject to Teichert’s CBA— are not paid as operating engineers and do not receive fringe benefits like … Here, although union employees are mentioned in ¶ 295, the focus is clearly on union membership, and not union employment. III.

State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

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

“To establish a violation of § 504 of the [Rehabilitation Act (“RA”)], a 10 plaintiff must show that (1) she is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2) she is 11 otherwise qualified for the benefit or services … Even though a disability is likely to be an underlying cause of some individuals 24 qualifying for additional negative factors, it will not be the sole cause.

K. v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2023

M.K. disputes that the disclosures he alleges qualify for the 2 exemption. Dkt. … Id. at 10-11. 17 “While the substantive reach of [the UCL] remains expansive,” to establish standing to 18 enforce the UCL’s provisions, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money

Mitchell v. People of the State of California

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

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). 17 The only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is 18 in the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of … A federal habeas court 6 making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s 7 application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409. 8 B.

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

730 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2010

This is also clearly shown in another bank slide from the February 2002 memo: [[Image here]] 112. … At least for those angry few lucky enough to qualify for these responses, they provided a comprehensible disclosure of the bank’s actual posting practices — after the fact. D.

Mcswiggin v. Saul

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 19, 2022

However, the notation of that error is purely academic due to the fact that the 21 ALJ improperly rejected other evidence that clearly establishes Plaintiff’s disability at step three 22 and beyond, such that no further … Plaintiff is clearly a 13 seriously impaired person who valiantly (as Dr.

Sowash

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 2026

Dismissal on Ground of Immunity 19 The County argues it is entitled to immunity under four statutes. … Rather, her claim is based on the theory that, whatever 18 the cause, Harding was clearly in distress and they failed to take appropriation action. 19 Additionally, the County cites § 855.8 of the Government Code

Harris v. Atchley

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 14, 2022

“In response, a claimant shall receive a 6 written decision” from the Institutional Office of Grievances “clearly explaining the reasoning for 7 the Reviewing Authority’s decision as to each claim.” … Harris is clearly 2 aware that he needs to exhaust, and states on the face of the FAC that he is in the process of doing 3 so.

Revelez v. Allison

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

In its review, the court must identify any 1 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 2 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). … “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary 13 injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 14 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities

Bustamonte v. Castillon

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2025

Bustamonte’s medical needs; and 24 (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 7. 25 Because the undisputed evidence shows that Mr. … “The grievant shall document clearly and coherently all 5 information known and available to him or her regarding the issue . . . includ[ing] any involved 6 staff member’s last name, first initial, title or position

Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s unexhausted claims against Defendants 13 Chappell, Jackson, Luna, and Hamilton, and Plaintiff’s immunity-barred claims against the 14 CDCR. Id. at 17, 19. … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 20 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Sanai v. Kozinski

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2021

It is certainly true that a financial stake in the outcome of a case is a 9 well-established ground for recusal. See Caperton v. A.T. … It is well established that the recusal inquiry must be 2 ‘made from the perspective of a reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts 3 and circumstances.”

Williams v. U.S. Airways American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2020

A at 11.) 2 Plaintiff was qualified for the position at the time he applied and remains qualified. … “Judgment on 18 the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that 19 no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corporation

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

Hynix clearly 4 made a broader point: it asks whether the petitioning activity furthered an anticompetitive scheme 5 involving nonpetitioning activity; if the gravamen of the action centers on nonpetitioning activity … But 15 similar to above, the FAC contains no specific allegations establishing such.