Case law

Penhall v. Lake County Probation Department

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

To establish a claim of wrongful 13 termination under the ADA, Penhall must establish that “(1) [she] is ‘disabled’ within the 14 meaning of the Act; (2) [she] is a ‘qualified individual’ within the meaning of the Act … It requires Penhall to first establish a 10 prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) that she suffers from a disability; (2) 11 that she was otherwise qualified to do her job; (3) that she was subjected to

Pickard v. Department of Justice

217 F. Supp. 3d 1081 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 15, 2016

On December 24, 2015, Judge Cousins issued a tentative ruling, concluding that “the government has provided no evidence to carry its burden of proving that documents in the three categories qualify for exemptions,” and ordered … will be immune from FOIA disclosure.’ ” In Lame, 654 F.2d at 925 , one of the cases discussed in Irons, the Third Circuit explained that “once there has been an expressed or implied assurance of confidentiality, a subsequent

Mitchell v. Kim

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 15, 2021

To establish an Eighth 27 Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, a prisoner-plaintiff must show: (1) a serious 1 indifference standard that applies in an Eighth Amendment claim requires that the official … 3 The elements of a cause of action under Title II of the ADA are: (1) the plaintiff is an 4 individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified

Alterg, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC

388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · May 20, 2019

The court determined that the plaintiff had "set out its purported trade secrets in broad, categorical terms, more descriptive of the types of information that generally may qualify as protectable trade secrets than as any … While the complaint states clearly that the contracts at issue require Individual Defendants to "keep confidential and not use or disclose AlterG's proprietary and confidential information in any way contrary to the benefit

Pristavec v. Meno Holdings SPV, LP

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 2022

and that the sale of the securities 18 were not registered and did not qualify for an exemption in violation of Section 5. … The Court explicitly noted that “it did not find [the plaintiff’s RICO 17 claim] to be a ‘nonfrivolous argument for the extension [or] modification . . . of existing law or the 18 establishment of new law.’” Id.

Treez, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security

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

“The burden of establishing application of the 8 privilege is on the party asserting it.” N. Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 9 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2003). … therefore, is especially relevant where a 23 plaintiff alleges that the agency arbitrarily departed from past precedent or practice, for 24 “[w]hatever the ground for the departure from prior norms, . . . it must be clearly

Bair v. Cal. State Dep't of Transp.

385 F. Supp. 3d 878 · District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2019

Professor Sturgeon seems clearly to say that paving over more than half the root zones will affect the health of the tree and paving over all of it will kill it. … It is established at roadway height at least 10 feet above downslope buttress flare. Work in structural root zone?

Kuang v. U.S. Dep't of Def.

340 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 16, 2018

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that this requirement is satisfied. 5. … Sierra Interagency Black Bear Grp. , 639 F.3d 949 , 955 (9th Cir. 2011) ; see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(B) (requiring a court to set aside agency action "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity").

Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California

937 F. Supp. 1397 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 1996

Lundquist to be uninterpretable because of nonsensical results: For instance, high ratings were given to the activity "Establish rapport with all students.” … Lundquist clearly would have been justified in discarding these outlier ratings. 53 . Dr.

Okinawa Dugong v. Gates

543 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 2008

These potential adverse effects include physical destruction of the Okinawa dugong resulting from contamination of seagrass feeding grounds and collisions with boats and vessels, as well as long-term immune and reproductive … That Congress clearly intended a take into account process to include these basic components is further supported by the context in which section 402 was enacted.

Herrera v. Benavides

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

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). … First of all, Plaintiff has not established 11 that the opening of this particular non-legal mail constitutes an adverse action.

McWhorter v. The Procter & Gamble Company

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2025

a “clearly inconsistent 3 position,” as required for judicial estoppel. … Finally, Plaintiffs fail to establish fraud on the part of P&G 22 where Plaintiffs cannot establish a knowing misrepresentation in its reference to an objective 23 standard.

Vizcarra v. Michaels Stores, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2024

Vizcarra’s complaint are sufficient to 6 establish a Section 17501 violation under the logic of Knapp. … The 3 court filings are clearly noticeable under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) and the Court takes 4 || notice of these documents.

Centennial Bank v. Kane

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 22, 2022

D.N.M. 10 2019), which recognized a “gray area” of debt that was not clearly consumer and not clearly non- 11 consumer. Id. at 6:1-22. … whether Kane’s debt was 17 consumer debt, the bankruptcy court marshaled and weighed evidence, made credibility 18 judgments, and addressed narrow facts related to the purpose behind the loans and whether that 19 qualified

Kamath v. Coinbase, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2024

Id. 13 The email and Plaintiff’s continued use of Coinbase’s services is enough to 14 establish reasonably conspicuous notice and assent to the terms of the … Cal. 17 2020) (plaintiffs on notice where “text contrasts clearly with the background and is plainly 18 readable”).

Lanz

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 14, 2025

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 11 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … The Ninth Circuit has 26 repeatedly found that a person need not be totally incapacitated to establish that he or she is 27 disabled.

Sterling v. Antioch

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 5, 2023

Rights Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that “[e]very person who, 17 under color of [law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . person . . . to the deprivation 18 of any rights, privileges, or immunities … City of Ellensburg, 8 869 F.2d 1230, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 1989) (single incident of excessive force inadequate to establish 9 liability); Meehan v.

UCP International Company Limited v. Balsam Brands Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 15, 2019

“We contemplate no communication that is more clearly protected by the 26 litigation privilege than the filing of a legal action.” Id. at 1249. … Cal. 2001) (“[A] communication merely informing a third party of 12 the pendency of this litigation must clearly fall within the privilege.”)

Tapia v. The Coca-Cola Company

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2023

And even 12 where facts are accepted as true, “a plaintiff may plead [him]self out of court” if he “plead[s] facts 13 which establish that he cannot prevail on his ... claim.” Weisbuch v. … Plaintiff also argues that that her allegation that the malic 27 acid is “used to enhance the taste of the fruits” does not contradict her allegation that it is a flavor 1 sufficient to qualify as a flavor.”

Maffick LLC v. Facebook Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2021

The plaintiff in Lexmark qualified 23 because it alleged injuries of “lost sales and damage to its business reputation,” which were 24 “injuries to precisely the sorts of commercial interests the Act protects.” … But the reputational injury must still be of a 11 commercial nature and clearly flow from the disparagement.