Case law

Monplaisir v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC

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

Brown 26 and Mr. Cherrington, apparently different from those originally submitted last March (Dkt. No. 27 172-2 at 132, 221). Both Mr. Brown and Mr. … See Palmquist v. Mercer, 43 Cal. 2d 92, 98, 272 P.2d 26 26 (1954); Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., 235 Cal. App. 4th 165, 173 (2015). Regardless, 27 plaintiffs provide no testimony from Mr.

Gross

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 2026

Id. 2 Flora’s board still supported Gross’s Claim, but it did not have the resources to pursue the 3 action itself. … Co. v. Pearson, 169 Cal.

United States v. Bridges

123 F. Supp. 705 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 1954

This finding was reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals which in turn was reversed by the Attorney General. Bridges was taken into custody and sought habeas corpus. … United States v. Ness, supra; Sourino v. United States, supra.

Gaballah v. PG & E

711 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 1989

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2853 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). … It distinguished Garibaldi v.

Runyan v. LendingClub Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2020

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). … Dated: 09-30-20 aundae. 13 mating 5 AUNDRA BROWN ARMSTR Senior United States District Judge 6 7

Shin v. Nicholson

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 29, 2023

LeBrun v. CBS Television Studios, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 5th 199, 209 (2021); see also Rakestraw v. … v.

Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward

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

See, e.g., Konen v. Caldeira, No. 22-cv-5195, 2023 WL 26 4595143, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023) (citing Robidoux v. … Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-cv-1451, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 3 || Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Williams v. Sup. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)).

Newton v. American Debt Services, Inc.

854 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2012

Sanchez v. … Ting v.

Holl v. Southern Pac. Co.

71 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 1947

See Lukon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1947, 3 Cir., 131 F.2d 327, 329, 330 ; Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1945, 323 U.S. 574 , 65 S.Ct. 421 , 89 L.Ed. 465 ; Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine R. R., supra; Ellis v. … Rigsby, 1916, 241 U.S. 33, 42 , 36 S.Ct. 482 , 60 L.Ed. 874 ; National Labor Relations Board v.

Cadriel v. Wolfspeed, Inc.

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

Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. 10 Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Theis Rsch., Inc. v. Brown & Bain, 400 11 F.3d 659, 662 (9th Cir. 2005)). … Brown, 2 2021 WL 3413349, at *7 (citing Gallegos v. EC USA Holdings Inc., No. 2:16-cv-03511, 2016 WL 3 8674592 (C.D. Cal. Oct 7, 2016)).

Fernandez v. K-M Industries Holding Co.

646 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 21, 2009

North Star also cites Pudela v. … In Donovan v.

Folsom-Third Street Meat Co. v. Freeman

307 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 1969

In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 31, 34, 37 , 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937); United States v. Darby, supra, 312 U.S. at 117-118 , 61 S.Ct. 451 ; United States v.

YES TO, LTD. v. Hur

779 F. Supp. 2d 1054 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2011

Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern. … In that case, the alleged forum selection clause provided that contractors would have the right to appeal to the Board of Grievances in Saudi Arabia. Id. at 219.

United States v. Richardson

27 F. Cas. 798 · District Court, N.D. California · May 20, 1862

If to this be added the fact that in her deed to James she describes the grant as for one league, in her petition to the board as for two leagues, while in her deed to Vallejo no description whatsoever is given, together … S. v. Rosa Pacheco [22 How. (63 U. S.) 225], is an authority for the confirmation of the whole tract; but the cases are essentially different.

Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board” or “PTAB”) of the U.S. 5 Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)—which decides whether to institute an IPR—has held that 6 counterclaims-in-reply are not subject to the bar … Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 18 1223 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Pub. Affairs Assocs., Inc. v.

In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 2023

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). … The plaintiffs argue that much of the information Google seeks to seal here 22 was revealed in Brown v. Google (No. 20-cv-3664), a related case. See Dkt. No. 574-1 ¶ 2.

In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation

241 F.R.D. 644 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2007

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir.1992). The court further notes that class actions play a particularly vital role in the private enforcement of antitrust actions. See Brown v. … Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 669 (7th Cir.1981); O’Connor v.

Shakanasa v. Contreras

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 12, 2021

Malik v. 13 Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994) (cited with approval in Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884). 14 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 15 elements … See Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1214, 1215 (9th Cir.1998) (correctional 1 substantial burden on free exercise of religion); Brown v. Washington, 752 F.

Doe v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 11, 2024

The TAC is dismissed. 21 The Court has reviewed the TAC with the liberality afforded pro se litigants such as Doe. 22 See Brown v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. … See Lopez v.

Ojeda v. Sandoval

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 9, 2023

See Brown v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 751 9 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that a 27-month confinement could support a due process 10 claim); see also King v. … Rand 19 v.