Case law

Clark v. Perez-Pantoja

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2023

25 immunity.1 Dkt. … Accordingly, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant took any 3 adverse against him on May 22, 2021, and therefore cannot establish a retaliation claim. 4 Id.

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.”

Unique v. Claybaugh

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 17, 2024

These separate consequences of the same allegedly common practice 3 qualify as a “series of transactions or occurrences” under Rule 20(a)(2), and resolving the various 4 counts arising therefrom in a single lawsuit … Cir. 1984) (“The doctrine of ‘pendent venue’ is now well established ….

Anigbogu v. Mayorkas

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2023

See Lyons, 307 F.3d at 1113–14 (finding plaintiff may show at prima facie 2 stage that he is comparably qualified to those awarded the positions or that he is minimally 3 qualified). … If Anigbogu can establish a 24 prima facie case, then the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies.

Smith v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 26, 2020

made; whether the declarant has recanted or reaffirmed the statement or the consistency of multiple statements; whether the statement was 19 recorded; and whether the declarant's firsthand knowledge is clearly … Turner’s 15 statements alone do not establish with sufficient credibility that such meetings occurred.

Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Zerpa

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

Guzman showed the Program in a commercial establishment is not enough to establish 10 willfulness.”); J & J Sports Prods. v. Coyne, 857 F. Supp. 2d 909, 918 (N.D. … As with Section 553 violations, an 9 “individual officer or director will be immune from torts committed by the corporation unless he 10 authorizes, directs, or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the

Leghorn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

950 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 2013

Therefore, to establish standing under the UCL a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury … To establish a violation of the UCL, a plaintiff may establish a violation under any one of these prongs. Here, Plaintiffs rely entirely on the “unfair” prong.

Electrical Workers Local 357 Pension v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.

185 F. Supp. 3d 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · May 5, 2016

“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. … Plaintiff does not have the burden of establishing an “express exception” to the removal statute. 2 *1176 B.

Nguyen v. Pallares

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 2021

The requirements of Miranda are “clearly 12 established” federal law for purposes of federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). … established Federal law.

Kuyawa v. Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC

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

The manufacturer relied on Dagher and 16 Rodriguez to argue that the plaintiff’s vehicle could not qualify as a “new motor vehicle” under the 17 Act. Id. (citing Rodriguez, 77 Cal. … He presumes that the express warranty was 7 extended for an implied warranty to be established. See Oppo. 5.

Rodewald v. Lizarraga

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2020

The only definitive 21 source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is in the holdings (as opposed 22 to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of the state court decision. … Rather, a federal habeas court 7 making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of 8 clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409.

Minit Mart LLC v. Synergy Petroleum Enterprises, Inc.

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

An Extra-Contractual Fraudulent Inducement Defense 10 Under Delaware law, an “explicit anti-reliance” provision in a contract bars a fraud claim 11 premised on extra-contractual statements when the provision clearly … Double E Holding Corp., because the PSA’s language 16 establishes that Synergy “only relied on particular information,” the PSA “establishes the universe 17 of information on which” Synergy relied. 132 A.3d 35, 51

Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 10, 2022

It immunizes defendants from virtually any tort 1 prosecution.” Olsen v. Harbison, 191 Cal. App. 4th 325, 333 (2010). … Regardless, no discovery 2 is necessary here, where Mogan’s claim is not viable as a matter of law because it is based upon 3 conduct that “is clearly protected by California’s litigation privilege.”

Jane Doe 1 v. Nielsen

357 F. Supp. 3d 972 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 10, 2018

The Amendment designated categories of individuals for whom less evidence would be needed to establish refugee status, including Jews and Christians from the Former Soviet Union. … Evid. 701 (providing that opinion testimony of lay witnesses must be "rationally based on the witness's perception" and "helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue.")

Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2019

He was paid through Edge Medical, 15 LLC, which he established for tax purposes (Dkt. … “[I]n order to prevail on [a] motion for summary 10 judgment,” a defendant must establish that “a jury would be compelled to find that it had 11 established by a preponderance of the evidence that the [plaintiff was an]

Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 4, 2024

The 26 FAC includes various allegations of fraudulent behavior related to submissions made to the U.S. 27 Patent Office and a prior lawsuit, but the FAC “does not clearly and concisely establish which 1 factual allegations … Resh 3 responds that it is requesting that the Court “determine whether those two poles qualify as prior 4 art.”

Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 30, 2025

Simon Helfgott 2 Simon Helfgott, M.D., isthe Director of Education and Fellowship Training in the 3 Division of Rheumatology, Immunity, and Inflammation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 4 where he oversees an … See, e.g., ECF 18 No. 202-31¶83 (“These warnings, provided by competent and independent experts, would have 19 clearly signaledto a reasonable doctor and scientist that there was a significant risk that avacopan 20

Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.

40 F. Supp. 3d 1202 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 2014

Exhibit I thus does not qualify as a matter of public record. Nonetheless, the Court grants the request for judicial notice. … The court must first determine whether the FDA has established requirements applicable to the device at issue.

(PC) Hill v. Ventura

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2021

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 13 (1976) (establishing that deliberate indifference requires more than negligence). Accordingly, 14 Plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to amend Claim I. … C 20-7460 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label the 9 complaint “Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form.

Golden Gate Hotel Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

864 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1993

However, the interest stated by the Ordinance—alleviating the problem of homelessness caused by the conversion and demolition of residential hotel units—is too narrow an interest to qualify as legitimate. … As Justice Scalia so clearly and persuasively stated: The traditional manner in which American government has met the problem of those who cannot pay reasonable prices for privately sold necessities—a problem caused by the