Case law

Costanzo v. DXC Technology Company

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 27, 2020

To support 17 this theory, Plaintiffs cite to a footnote from an out-of-district decision with clearly distinguishable 18 facts. … This clearly means layoffs were to be expected.

Ply Gem Industries Inc. v. James River Insurance Company

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

The burden 16 of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see Celotex 17 Corp. v. … Ply Gem argues that “property damage to the materials encasing Ply Gem’s product” clearly 3 invokes coverage for “property damage” as defined in the policy.

Xu v. FibroGen, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 2022

Id. 2 In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 983, 1033 (S.D. … Opp’n at 29–30 (citing Immune 20 Response, 375 F.

Eco Electrical Systems, LLC v. Reliaguard Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 2022

Defendants argue that this statement is inadmissible because it is based on 26 technical or specialized knowledge and Lynch was never qualified as an expert (Reply Br. 5). 27 This is ridiculous. … alternatively 21 referred to as “product disparagement” — a plaintiff must show that defendants issued (1) a 22 false or misleading statement that (2) specifically referred to the plaintiff’s product or business, 23 (3) clearly

Lovell

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2026

state funds and values is a public function: the 5 question is whether the function is one “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State,” and 6 serving a population the state might otherwise serve does not qualify … It identifies the fair-housing laws only to show that the plaintiff may 16 plausibly plead a claim and why amendment is not clearly futile, not to limit what the plaintiff may 17 plead. Cf. Foman v.

A & M RECORDS, INC. v. Napster, Inc.

114 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2000

Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement. … Olkin identified only three files (or .26 percent) which were clearly offered without objection from the rights holder, while 108 (or 9.4 percent) of the files did not present enough data to yield a conclusion.

Jewish Legal News, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2025

“Exemption 6 states that 18 FOIA does not apply to ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would 19 constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” … JLN argues that the September 28, 2023, letter does not qualify as a “determination” 21 without citation to any binding or persuasive law.

Andrew Mattioda v. Jim Bridenstine

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

Aug. 25, 2021).1 First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie 22 case of discrimination by showing that: (1) he is a person with a disability; (2) he is otherwise 23 qualified to do his job; (3) he suffered discrimination … For example, he has not shown he was the “clearly 18 superior” candidate for the ST position. See Peters v. Shamrock Foods Co., 262 Fed. Appx. 30, 19 33 (9th Cir. 2007).

Rothschild

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2025

Though “an 18 officer or director will not be liable for torts in which he does not personally participate, of which 19 he has no knowledge, or to which he has not consented,” he is not immune from liability where … to establish [his] state citizenship.

Robertson v. Santoro

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2021

Robertson’s Batson challenge at the first 13 step was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of clearly 14 established Supreme Court holdings. … Robertson’s due process claim was not contrary to, or an 18 unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court.

Dunn v. Covello

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

Jodi Couick, a school 5 psychologist who assessed defendant in 2006 and determined he 6 qualified for special education … For that reason alone, the state court’s 24 rejection of this claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court 25

Peak v. Tigergraph, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 2021

7 In general, “a complaint made to an employer (or a manager of the employer) by 8 an employee who reasonably believes that the wages he or she has been paid violate 9 such laws readily qualifies … Upon the filing of any amended complaint, plaintiff must 21 also file a redline clearly demarcating its changes from the FAC. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated:

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

329 F. Supp. 3d 1070 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 19, 2018

Plaintiffs respond that whether Ariosa's "readout cassettes" qualified as the claimed "amplicons" was a question of fact for the jury; that Ariosa admitted that it uses "cleaved amplicons"; and that there was detailed testimony … "[W]hile the facts relied upon to establish equitable estoppel must be clear, positive, and unequivocal in their implication, these facts need not be established by any more than a fair preponderance of the evidence."

Shoaga v. City of San Pablo

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

In the amended 22 complaint, Plaintiff must clearly allege facts to support a claim that the community caretaking 23 doctrine does not apply to the impoundment of his car. … Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing severe or extreme emotional 8 distress caused by Defendants. The claim is dismissed without leave to amend. 9 IV.

Jones v. Boulden

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 13, 2024

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … When Plaintiff told Defendant Rice to provide him a 5 replacement meal, Defendant Jose sent up sunflower butter, but the package clearly stated that the 6 sunflower butter could contain peanut butter because it was

Valdovinos v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2023

“Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing 14 two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary 15 circumstance stood in his way … This is not the case here; in the 25 notice of denial, the Council clearly states that the ALJ’s decision was not a recommendation and therefore denied review.

John Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 2022

Legal Standard 3 Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that an expert witness’s testimony be 4 qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, … Crandall, however, only breaks down activities in his report as personal and 23 work-related, and thus these clearly personal activities cannot be broken out from the instances in 24 which it is unknown whether the

Gillard v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 12, 2022

As with the reimbursement plan described 3 above, a Settlement Class Member must submit Proof of Adherence to the Vehicle’s Maintenance 4 Schedule to qualify for the Extended Warranty. … “Generally, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, 20 its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain 21 results.” Ching v.

Res-Care Inc. v. Roto-Rooter Services Co.

753 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 2010

Dunkin, 1 Cal.App.3d 58, 61 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 428 (1969) ("Subdivision (d) of section 875 clearly denies the right of contribution to `any tortfeasor who has intentionally injured the injured person.'"). … If no such pretrial allocation and determination has been made, there may be other methods to establish damages.

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 2022

This is clearly verified in the 17 deposition testimony of GM’s Grant Tappen. . . and in the deposition testimony of GM’s Thomas 18 Halka”); id. ¶¶ 169-78. … Sept. 22, 25 2021) (“[I]t is well established that experts on damages can assume causation.”); Orthofix, Inc. v. 26 Gordon, Case No. 1:13-cv-1463, 2016 WL 1273160, at *3 (C.D. Ill.