Case law

Crowder v. LinkedIn Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 8, 2023

Although changes in product design are not immune from antitrust 6 scrutiny, one that improves a product does not violate the antitrust laws “absent some associated 7 anticompetitive conduct.” … June 10, 2004) (opining 15 that City of Anaheim’s “overall combined effect” analysis “does not allow for clearly legal acts to 16 be thrown into the mix to bolster a plaintiff’s antitrust case”).6 17

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Bay Valley Security L.L.C

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2021

As reflected by the qualifier “usually” in Thompson, 16 however, it is not necessarily quite such a bright line as Mt. Hawley suggests. … Hawley has 10 established a theoretical right to recission of the policy, in these circumstances the recission should be 11 conditioned on Mt.

Martinez v. Marin Sanitary Service

349 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 2004

Some of the events, such as the incident in which Martinez disposed of items that were not garbage, clearly do not provide a basis for making the claim actionable. … Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is based on their contention that Martinez cannot establish the third factor.

Daniel v. Neuschmid

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 16, 2020

Abrahamson, 507 2 U.S. 619, 637 (1993)). 3 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the Supreme Court’s 4 jurisprudence. … A state court 7 decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it “applies a rule that 8 contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or if it “confronts a set of

Robertson v. Doe

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

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Bussell’s threat of adverse action against 23 him for engaging in free speech under the First Amendment violated a clearly established 24 right. Id. … immunity argument.

McCulloch v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

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

However, 4 the Court has discretion to consider extrinsic evidence when circumstances clearly establish that 5 additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision. 6 Mongeluzo … (“Many medical conditions depend for their diagnosis on patient reports of pain or 19 other symptoms, and some cannot be objectively established.”). Notably, Dr.

Nguyen v. City Of San Jose

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

Although a municipality qualifies as a “person” under § 11 1983, a municipality cannot “be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Id. at 12 691. … The whistleblower email, on 9 the other hand, far more clearly asserts that Gerry was demanding bribes and sexually harassing 10 massage business owners.

Lemke-Vega v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 12, 2023

“[T]he court [in Jensen] was 2 not asked to decide whether a used car with an unexpired warranty sold by a third party reseller 3 qualifies as a ‘new motor vehicle.’” … Cal. 2017) (noting “[t]he plain language of the section clearly only creates 6 obligations on behalf of ‘the distributor or retail seller making express warranties with respect to 7 used consumer goods (and not the

Reyes v. Rasheed

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2020

Consequently, in order for deliberate 25 indifference to be established, there must exist both a purposeful act or failure to act on the 26 part of the defendant and harm resulting therefrom. McGuckin v. … immunity.

Clark v. O'Malley

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2024

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 15 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … On review, this 24 Court’s duty is to determine “whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical 25 evidence clearly established” Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment.

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2023

Defendants, in opposition, focus largely on the 19 contention that Plaintiffs have not established typicality or predominance because their 20 acquisitions of Bayer American Depositary Receipts do not qualify as domestic … Only one of these prongs needs to be established to allay 10 extraterritoriality concerns.

(Willie) Johnson v. Ayers

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

federal court “determine[s], considering only the evidence before the 3 state court, that the adjudication of a claim on the merits resulted in a decision contrary to or 4 involving an unreasonable application of clearly … Id. at 466. 7 Almost all of the evidence against him at trial was provided by Carriger’s acquaintance, Dunbar, in 8 exchange for Dunbar’s immunity in an unrelated burglary. Id.

Progressive Select Insurance Company v. McKinley

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2021

of the Policy states that it provides up to $100,000 for one 6 person’s bodily injuries for each accident. 7 After Progressive issued the Policy, McKinley moved to South Carolina and established … The drunk driver and the vehicle he was driving qualify 14 as an “uninsured motor vehicle” or an “underinsured motor vehicle” as those terms are defined in 15 the Policy. Id., Fact.

United States of America v. Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

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

No. 297- 11 3, Ex. 5, qualify as one of the three specified disclosure channels in the FCA, the portion that 12 Tetra Tech highlighted clearly has to do with “air monitors” and “the air monitoring plan,” and not 13 … It also 5 says that the article “clearly put the government on notice to investigate any allegations that TTI 6 had purportedly failed to provide the required notice period for the Memorandum.”

Hanan v. USCIS

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2024

Because of this special status accorded such alien relatives, aliens who either cannot otherwise 11 qualify for immigration to the United States or who, though qualified, are not … Given the different 24 procedural postures of Ching and Muñoz, the Court cannot say that the reasoning of Ching is 25 clearly irreconcilable with Muñoz.

Birru v. Barr

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 17, 2020

Third, and finally, Petitioner, who is 36 years old, states that she suffers 19 from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), that people with PTSD “often have weakened 20 immune function,” that her PTSD thus renders … motion. 20 Within 30 days of this order, Respondents must provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an 21 Immigration Judge who has the power to grant Petitioner’s release on bond if Respondents fail to 22 establish

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

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

Krosnick’s idiographic damages 27 calculations, but the logic clearly applies to them as well. 1 At the same time, the Tyson Court recognized that “the question whether uninjured class 2 members may … White’s speculation as to Home Depot’s motives in establishing a pre-shift policy 24 are irrelevant to the question of whether employees were “controlled” by Defendant. To the extent 25 Mr.

Swanson v. County of Contra Costa

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

California courts have clearly limited the scope of Section 15 845.6 to public employees’ failure to summon immediate medical care and have excluded claims 16 based on the manner in which care was provided: … Thus, section 845.6 creates out of the general 23 immunity a limited cause of action against a public entity for its employees' failure to summon immediate medical care only. 24

IN RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 30, 2024

John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 267 (2014)). 26 To establish falsity under the first element, the misrepresentation or omission must either 27 “directly contradict what the defendant knew at that time” … Compare, e.g., CC ¶ 106 (stating that “[t]he highlighted statements were 1 In amending the complaint, plaintiffs shall clearly identify which statements in the block quotes are 2 || the challenged statements

Daly v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for First Republic Bank

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

The problem for the FDIC is that 21 it has not established that the D’Oench doctrine and statutes discussed above apply in the 22 employment context specifically. … Tex. 1991) (rejecting FDIC’s 4 argument that it is immune to state law claims for, e.g., punitive damages; “[w]hen acting in 5 receivership capacity, state law governs, and defenses that the FDIC could use in their