Case law

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.

Hayer v. Liverant

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2023

Johnson, 2022 WL 104736, at *3 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly alleges a theory of liability based on a refusal to provide 6 reasonable … In other words, Plaintiff’s dog simply needs to be a dog to qualify as an emotional 14 support animal, so no inspection of the dog or its qualities is relevant to this case.

Jacobs v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation

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

According to Liberty, Jacobs must have been “named” in 9 the document; the Petition was against the Trust, not Jacobs, and so it does not qualify. … And even if Liberty were correct that 22 the Policy does not cover some remedies, California law is clear that “when the third party suit 23 includes some claims that are potentially covered, and some that are clearly

City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

242 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 2003

Turner, 244 Cal.App.2d 872 , 53 Cal.Rptr. 628 (1966): “It is well established in California, moreover, that such [fraud] damages may include loss of anticipated profits where an established business has been injured.” … Lost profits — properly defined — clearly are generally available.

In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.

349 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 2018

These cases do not shed light on Plaintiffs' depreciation-based theory of injury; they are also clearly distinguishable. … EPA was clearly responsible for regulating that conduct, and EPA indeed did investigate and penalize it.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v. PG&E Fire Victim Trust

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

A.B. 1054 § 1(a). 5 For PG&E to qualify for the Go-Forward Wildfire Fund, however, A.B. 1054 required, 6 among other things, PG&E to obtain an order from the Bankruptcy Court confirming a plan … PwC’s challenge, by contrast, clearly turns on the granular and fact-intensive (but entirely 1 substantive claims to be discoverable.

Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2021

trusteed by an escrow agent (the 19 “Qualified Settlement Fund” or “QSF”). … “Generally, unless the settlement is clearly 27 inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with 1 (N.D. Cal.

Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2020

P. 23(a). 19 In addition to establishing numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, a plaintiff 20 must establish one or more of the following grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action: (1) … Other courts have accepted similar reasoning to establish numerosity.

Stamps v. Grounds

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 2019

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). 2g || The only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is 1 |} 1n the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the … A federal habeas court 3 15 || making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s A 16 || application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.”

Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes Inc.

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

3 Malwarebytes argues that there is no close question presented here because the challenged 4 designations were made within Malwarebytes’s own products and thus at the threshold do not 5 qualify … However, as Enigma notes, there is no 6 categorical rule that in-product statements are immune from Lanham Act claims. See Opp’n 11– 7 12.

Reilly v. Hearst Corp.

107 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 27, 2000

Citizen Publishing also establishes a “no alternative purchaser” prong of the failing company defense. … The evidence clearly establishes that, insofar as the only “offers” for the Examiner involved substantial subsidies by Hearst, none of those offers undermines the conclusion that the Examiner is a failing company.

Shin v. ICON Foundation

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 9, 2021

implementation of the Revision 10 Proposal did 21 to his access to the ICX tokens, whether the access to all or specifically the 14 million generated 22 ICX tokens were impacted and how the restriction at issue in this case qualifies … Id. at 1401. 13 Jamgotchian also involved a separate issue of whether the horse steward had immunity for 14 his actions, because they were an exercise of his authority under the horse racing regulations

Airlines For America v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2025

In Allied, 7 the Court held that a legislation did not “protect a broad societal interest” because there was scant 8 “indication of legislative intent in the record” identifying a public purpose and it “clearly [had … In particular, “[i]t applie[d] only to private employers 10 who have at least 100 employees, at least one of whom works in Minnesota, and who have 11 established voluntary private pension plans, qualified under § 401

Athletics Investment Group, LLC v. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.

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

claim challenges Schnitzer’s 15 failure to obtain a permit to operate its shredder at the facility under Title V of the CAA for two 16 time periods, 2006-09 and 2016-17.2 One of Schnitzer’s defenses is that it is immune … [Docket No. 147 (Hr’g Tr., May 3, 2024) 28-29.] 9 BAAQMD’s pre-decisional deliberations about Schnitzer’s Title V application clearly bear on the 10 timeliness issue.

Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2023

For qualifying individuals, the Government would pay 16 up to $130 of the premium cost, using taxpayer dollars. … For qualifying individuals, the Government would pay 7 up to $130 of the premium cost, using taxpayer dollars.

Osorio v. Hol-Mac Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 15, 2020

Documents 25 that have been held to qualify as an “other paper” include “responses to request for admissions, 26 Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 888 F.2d 779, 780 (11th Cir.1989); settlement offers, Addo v. … other hand, the information contained in the documents supplied by 7 Plaintiff’s counsel – when considered in tandem with the allegation in the complaint that she is a 8 current resident of Livermore, California – clearly

Hamilton v. Barnes

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 5, 2021

[I]t clearly 13 does not extend to issues an appellate court did not address.”) … The court qualified its discussion by noting that the rule of mandate barred a lower tribunal from reconsidering “a question decided by an appellate court.” Id.

Choudhuri v. Specialized Loan Servicing

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 2024

Here, Choudhuri pleads no facts establishing 22 that Dryden had notice of her claims prior to its purchase of the property. … The Court agrees. 18 “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) ‘immunizes providers of 19 interactive computer services against liability arising from content created

Rodriguez v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2025

Evid. 702. 25 Even if a witness is qualified as an expert in a particular field, any scientific, technical, or 26 specialized testimony is admissible only if it (a) “will help the trier of fact to understand the … Moreover, Plaintiffs have not established a 23 methodology (let alone a reliable one) that enabled Schneier to arrive at such opinions.