Case law

Lu v. Align Technology, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2020

Similarly, Plaintiff disregards the ways in which 1 Hogan qualifies his answer. Hogan states, “I think there’s going to be a low end to this market.” 2 Id. (emphasis altered). … See 20 In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 983, 1022 (S.D.

Arnold v. Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc.

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

Arnold’s 10 amended pleading should include allegations clearly identifying the insurance policy at issue, as 11 well the involvement, if any, each defendant had in the events underlying her claims. 12 Additionally … Moreover, the SPD states that for claimants who qualify, “the amount of [their] 10 monthly T&PD benefit will be $18.00 per $1,000 of life insurance coverage. The maximum 11 benefit is $19,000.” Dkt.

Arnold v. Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc.

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

Arnold’s 10 amended pleading should include allegations clearly identifying the insurance policy at issue, as 11 well the involvement, if any, each defendant had in the events underlying her claims. 12 Additionally … Moreover, the SPD states that for claimants who qualify, “the amount of 10 [their] monthly T&PD benefit will be $18.00 per $1,000 of life insurance coverage. The 11 maximum benefit is $19,000.” Dkt.

Arnold v. Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc.

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

Arnold’s 10 amended pleading should include allegations clearly identifying the insurance policy at issue, as 11 well the involvement, if any, each defendant had in the events underlying her claims. 12 Additionally … Moreover, the SPD states that for claimants who qualify, “the amount of 10 [their] monthly T&PD benefit will be $18.00 per $1,000 of life insurance coverage. The 11 maximum benefit is $19,000.” Dkt.

Hernandez v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART)

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

Id. at ¶ 159. 13 Although the FAC does not clearly categorize the 138 Plaintiffs, it pleads identical sets of 14 allegations for three distinct groups. … Noting that “traditional tangible harms, such 3 as physical harms and monetary harms” “readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III,” the 4 Court observed that “intangible harms can also be concrete,” including

Cleveland v. Macomber

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2021

L. testified under a grant of use immunity. … A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” 19 inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law 20 was “objectively unreasonable.”

Hesterberg v. United States

71 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 9, 2014

The FTCA vests federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the United States for certain losses and injuries for which it has waived sovereign immunity. F.D.I.C. v. … Because Hesterberg has established the elements for his negligence cause of action, the Court finds in favor of Hesterberg, and against the government, on the negligence claim. *1043 C.

Mahoney v. Facebook, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2024

In sum, 18 Mahoney fails to establish that Meta’s Emergency News Statement specifically referred to her or 19 was understood by any third party as referring to her. … Mahoney 24 requested leave to amend, and such amendment is not clearly futile at this stage.

Chiquita Fresh North America, L.L.C. v. Greene Transport Co.

949 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 2013

The court concludes that the Indemnity and Defense Provision clearly encompasses ¡the duty to defend against claims alleging Chiquita’s own negligence. See also Lamson & Sessions Co. v. … The duty of defense is much broader than the duty of indemnification and can be invoked even though no liability is ultimately established.”) (citations omitted). .

Liaw v. United Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2019

But this alone does not qualify him to 23 opine on the aerodynamic loads that may result in a back injury. Even assuming the descent was 24 “rapid,” the record does not show that Dr. … But summary judgment motions are clearly “more than 24 tangentially related” to the merits.

Rivera v. Broomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

in the State court proceeding.ˮ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. 15 Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–13 (2000). 16 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to … A state court 20 decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it “applies a rule that 21 contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or if it “confronts a set

Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 15, 2020

The Guide even advises, “[i]f significant corrosion is 15 apparent or suspected, then the framing members, fasteners and connectors should be inspected 16 by a qualified engineer or qualified inspector. … Under 26 Florida law, “[i]n order to establish fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must allege and establish 1) 27 successful concealment of the cause of action, 2) fraudulent means to achieve that concealment, 1

Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.

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

The Fifth Circuit held that “[g]iven the applicable binding precedent, it is of 1 Advertisements do not become immune from Lanham Act scrutiny simply because their claims 2 are open to scientific or public debate. … Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 17 In the PI Order, the Court held that it could not hold that the challenged statements were 18 “clearly false before discovery and expert testimony is taken” at the “early

PTC Therapeutics, Inc. v. AcureX Biosciences Corporation, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 2026

At the same 8 time, a plaintiff “must ‘clearly refer to tangible trade secret material’ instead of referring to a 9 ‘system which potentially qualifies for trade secret protection.’” Imax Corp. v. … Separately, “to establish a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair 15 dealing, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) the parties entered into a contract; (2) the plaintiff fulfilled his 16 obligations under the contract

Chastain v. Howard

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

Chastain updated an application to certify CRG 13 as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business in order to qualify for certain federal 14 contracts. Dr. Chastain claims that Ms. … Howard told him that she was in fact the majority owner and 12 showed him purported 1998 board minutes establishing this.

Navigation Holdings, LLC v. Molavi

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

The Ninth Circuit has held that client information may qualify 21 as a trade secret. For example, in Gallagher Benefit Svcs., Inc. v. … For example, in 13 Genentech, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant received a report “clearly labeled” with the 14 plaintiff’s name and “clearly marked ‘Confidential’ and ‘Internal Only.’” Genentech, Inc. v.

Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission

611 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2009

Further, the Court found the expert witnesses to be highly qualified. … The RTIP was established by statute in 1997 to restructure the STIP into two parts.

Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2025

The notice established a deadline of February 3, 2025 for 5 parties to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this action. … The 16 PSLRA “clearly leaves the choice of class counsel in the hands of the lead plaintiff.”2 In re 17 Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 734.

Plan Administrator of the Chevron Corporation Retirement Restoration Plan v. Minvielle

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

She also was awarded non- 11 qualified stock options under the Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) (collectively with RRP, the 12 “Plans”). Id. ¶ 20. … Clearly, that district is the more convenient forum for them.

Silbersher v. Allergan plc

District Court, N.D. California · May 7, 2024

Apr. 11, 2018). 5 There, the district court denied a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity and lack of 6 subject matter jurisdiction where the defendant was the chairman of a tribal council that had … concluded that the relief sought by the defendant was improper, explaining: 12 By requesting an indicative ruling, the Kelly Defendants are asking the Court to decide an issue that they have clearly