Case law

In re: Nestle Boost Nutritional Drink Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2025

To do so, a plaintiff must 17 “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., 18 economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e … But this testimony does not establish Mr.

McGee

District Court, N.D. California · May 22, 2026

7 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 8 of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The Court previously concluded that “Plaintiff does not clearly articulate what his claim is for, but asserts 26 that Defendants’ actions

Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2019

First, plaintiff must establish the four prima facie elements of his 4 claim: “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he 5 sought or was performing competently in the position … Once an employee establishes a prima 1 adverse employment action.

Wills v. City of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2022

The SAC Establishes That Ms. Wills Has Standing for Retrospective Relief 20 To establish Article III standing to challenge the City’s code sections, Ms. … The SAC Does Not Establish Standing for Prospective Relief 24 The City argues that the SAC does not seek prospective relief.

Decena v. Allegiant Final Mile, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 2, 2024

. § 395.3, which only deals with the short- 25 haul exceptions for rest periods and does not establish a wide-ranging exemption. … establish that 10 defendants owe these parties a payment obligation.

Morrison v. Saul

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

While claimants must carry 16 the burden of demonstrating that they qualify for benefits, the law does not leave them entirely to 17 their own devices; consequently, lapses and omissions in pleading or procedure cannot … established by medical evidence.”

Lucas v. Hertz Corp.

875 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 2012

Martin argues that because, as he declares, he either was never given a copy of the folder jacket or was given it after he signed the rental agreement, he and Hertz never clearly agreed to the arbitration provision. … “A third party qualifies as a beneficiary under a contract if the parties intended to benefit the third party and the terms of the contract make that intent evident.” Karo v.

Brewster v. Mills

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 2022

The Court will discuss this issue with the parties at the further pretrial conference, and 19 the parties need to be prepared to conclusively and clearly explain whether there is actually any 20 live issue with respect … And 14 Plaintiff’s out of court statement also does not qualify as a prior consistent statement, because it 15 was made after Plaintiff already had a motive to fabricate (i.e., when he was being questioned in 16

Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 29, 2022

the evidence 7 in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial.” … Pinsonneault’s view, Reckitt’s internal materials 8 || clearly tie the[j% price increase to the color renew/revive representation. See id. {§ 36-43.

dela Cruz v. Brennan

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2020

In Gifford, the Ninth Circuit held that for purposes of a Title VII retaliation 23 claim, there is no distinction “between the filing of a[n EEO] charge which is clearly protected, 24 and threatening to file a charge … Plaintiff alleges that he was 2 qualified for FMLA leave at the time he went on stress leave and thus “took FMLA-protected 3 leave.”

Biesenbach v. DOES 1-3

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 2022

of the filing fee whenever it determines that 23 the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 24 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … The Ninth Circuit has held 5 that the statute maintains a “narrow conception of ‘loss,’” and that its definition, “with its 6 references to damage assessments, data restoration, and interruption of service—clearly limits

Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Fresh Express, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2020

“Trade dress is the composite tapestry of visual effects.” 1 determinative, “[a] plaintiff should clearly articulate its claimed trade dress to give a 2 defendant sufficient notice.” Sleep Sci. … These allegations 2 underlying plaintiffs’ intentional interference claim are clearly based on the same nucleus 3 of facts underlying their misappropriation claim.

Mendia-Alcaraz

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2025

of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c), it is 11 “unlawful to offer or sell a security in interstate commerce if a registration statement has not been 12 filed as to that security, unless the transaction qualifies … there is no indication defendants and relief defendants’ failure to participate in the litigation is due 3 to excusable neglect, particularly when the communications between the SEC’s counsel and 4 Mendia-Alcaraz clearly

In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2022

The 4 doctrine provides qualified protection against discovery of the legal strategies and mental 5 impressions of a party’s counsel. Hickman v. … Those questions cannot be answered for all disputed entries simply by referring to 16 Google’s privilege logs, particularly for those entries that do not clearly indicate (by name or 17 otherwise) the attorney or attorneys

In Re Northern District of California "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation

526 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 1981

The inherent powers of the trial court in conducting a class action lawsuit clearly vest it with the authority to certify a class when such a decision is in the collective best interest of the plaintiffs. 22 As this court … Fact Concerts, Inc., — U.S. —, 101 S.Ct. 2748 , 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (municipalities are immune from punitive damages); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v.

Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 10, 2019

But one bad driver 20 (or instance of bad driving) does not establish a violation of the ADA. Midgett, 254 F.3d at 850 21 (“Occasional problems, do not, without more, establish a violation of the ADA.”). … Defendants 17 place much emphasis on the operator’s manual for Jones’s scooter, in which is clearly written: 18 “Under no circumstances should the scooter be used as a seat in a motor vehicle.”

Securities And Exchange Commission v. Richman

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

To qualify for reimbursement, insurers generally require that a 26 diagnostic test be ordered by a doctor. Id. ¶ 22. … Prescribing 6 tests based solely on online questionnaires raised concerns about whether doctors were 7 prescribing tests without first establishing the requisite doctor-patient relationship.

Winninger v. Scott

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 5, 2022

The form must be “structured to maximize an applicant’s ability to complete 9 the form satisfactorily, taking into account the characteristics of individuals who qualify for 10 applicable State health subsidy programs … Section 6470, like Section 1363.1, is clearly inconsistent 27 with the ACA mandate requiring a simplified telephone enrollment option.

Gonzalez v. Lam

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2020

), (b) even if he did exhaust, the 2 undisputed evidence shows (i) Plaintiff did not have a serious medical need and (ii) Defendant was 3 not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, and (c) based on qualified … immunity; and 4 (2)on Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief because it is moot.

Gonzalez v. Lam

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2020

), (b) even if he did exhaust, the 2 undisputed evidence shows (i) Plaintiff did not have a serious medical need and (ii) Defendant was 3 not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, and (c) based on qualified … immunity; and 4 (2) on Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief because it is moot.