Case law

Paschal v. City and County of San Franisco

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2023

Primary residency “shall be established by 22 showing the residential unit is listed as the applicant’s residence on at least two of the following: 23 motor vehicle registration; driver’s license; voter registration … The Ninth 22 Circuit has held that the “roommate relationship easily qualifies,” as people “generally have very 23 few roommates; they are selective in choosing roommates; and non-roommates are excluded from 24 the

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

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.

Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 25, 2019

He was paid through Edge Medical, 12 LLC, which he established for tax purposes (Dkt. … “[I]n order to prevail on [a] motion for summary 8 judgment,” a defendant must establish that “a jury would be compelled to find that it had 9 established by a preponderance of the evidence that the [plaintiff was an] independent

Friedman v. City of Fairfax

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2024

Id. 22 Although not clearly stated in the FAC, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed at oral argument that the 23 Permit was revoked at the February 2024 hearing. … However, a public employee is 7 immune from liability if the injury resulted from the employee’s “exercise of the discretion vested 8 in [the employee], whether or not such discretion be abused.” Cal. Gov.

Environmental Protection Information Center v. Blackwell

389 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 2004

Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir.2004) (noting that “the record clearly establishes that this stretch of the Snake River has long been an important and productive bald eagle nesting territory”). … USDA, 341 F.3d 961 , 970 (9th Cir.2003) (“Although we have not established a minimum level of public comment and participation required by the regulations governing the EA and FONSI process, we clearly have held that the

Yates v. Sonoma County

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 2024

“[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless 19 it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the 20 timeliness of the claim.” Id. … But that case was decided on qualified immunity grounds at the summary judgment stage 4 based on the Court’s finding that the right Plaintiff asserted was not clearly established. 997 F.3d 5 at 1066-1069.

Woods v. City of Hayward

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2019

, and Franklin does not support a claim for unreasonable search. 20 Assuming for the sake of argument that an excessive show of force during a search 21 pursuant to a valid warrant might in some circumstances establish … Taking those statutes into account, the immunity against non- 14 statutory claims provided by section 815 is unlikely to affect the viability of Woods’s claims in 15 this case.

Craigslist, Inc. v. NATUREMARKET, INC.

694 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2010

First, Plaintiff established that its computers were used in interstate commerce, and therefore qualify as protected computers under the CFAA. (Compl. ¶ 144; FAC ¶ 145.) … Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff has sufficiently established its claim under the CFAA. d.

Rimas Eugenio v. Eugenio

District Court, N.D. California · May 1, 2024

Wash. 2017) (“The federal law underlying the I–864 Affidavit 24 clearly specifies the instances in which the support obligation can be avoided . . . . … Eugenio proceeds pro se, it cannot relax the summary judgment 15 standard to such an extent that unsubstantiated arguments concerning prior gifts of unarticulated 16 value are sufficient to establish a material dispute

Randle v. Antioch Police Department

District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2024

Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (citing cases 3 establishing exceptions to warrant requirement and “intrusions less severe than full-scale searches 4 or seizures” that do not necessitate a warrant). … Before turning to the lawfulness of a 8 search, a court must first determine whether an intrusion qualifies as a search within the meaning 9 of the Fourth Amendment. Sanchez v.

Piterman v. Gold Coast Exotic Imports LLC

District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2021

It 3 has never been licensed nor qualified to do business in the State of California, nor sought to be 4 licensed or qualified to do business in California. Declaration of Joseph J. … the answer clearly is that it cannot.”)); see also Glob.

Prado v. City of Berkeley

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2024

Jeffords has intellectual disabilities that affect his memory and 27 ability to think clearly and understand written materials. … “The 18 plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these 19 elements,” which at the pleadings stage means “clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating each 20 element

Wright v. Schock

571 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 1983

The first of the three Howey-Forman elements — an investment of money — is clearly satisfied here. … The performance of mere “ministerial tasks” is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability. In Mendelsohn v.

Jolly v. Intuit Inc

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2020

a]ny dispute or claim 5 relating in any way to the services or this agreement will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather 6 than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify … Intuit has not established that the Sherman Act claims were clearly added solely for the 6 purpose of manufacturing jurisdiction.

CleanFish, LLC v. Sims

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 14, 2020

But customer information does not by itself categorically qualify 3 as a trade secret. Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1, 18 (1991). … in CleanFish, or that a contractual 5 provision established a fiduciary duty.

Kifle v. Youtube LLC

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

not establish that Kifle has a protectible interest in either mark. … First, the cease-and-desist letter 3 more clearly asserts that Kifle had a protectible interest in the mark. Id.

Coelho v. Hyundai Motor America

District Court, N.D. California · May 31, 2023

HMA also argues that 2 the claim must be dismissed because Coelho “failed to allege facts to establish whether HMA 3 maintains a qualified informal dispute resolution process, and, if so, whether Plaintiff has availed … Motions to strike “should 20 not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the 21 subject of the litigation.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F.

Murray v. Local 2620, District Council 57, American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees

192 F.R.D. 629 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 17, 2000

Commonality In order to fulfill the commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2), plaintiff must establish that there are questions of law or fact common to the class as a whole. … Clearly, there are several remaining issues which are no more moot in this case than they were in Knight.

Hill v. Batchley

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

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 13 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … C 20-6428 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label 3 || the complaint “Second Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form.