Case law

Telebrands Corp. v. VindEx Solutions LLC

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

deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury’; and 1 advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.’” … Mar 21, 2008) 4 (“the Federal Circuit has observed that the public interest is clearly served by healthy, fair 5 competition”).

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.

Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.

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

Phase I was 3 limited to Lawson’s individual claims and the issue of whether Lawson qualifies as an “aggrieved 4 employee” under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). (Id. at 3.) … In doing so, the Supreme Court specifically addressed and denied the petitioners’ 19 argument it would be unfair to apply the ABC test retroactively because “employers were clearly 20 on notice well before the Dynamex

Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Ategrity Specialty Insurance Co., Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2023

Defendant argues only that the attorney declaration through 6 which they were submitted failed to establish personal knowledge of the documents. … There is no reason to believe that Plaintiff 22 would be precluded from bringing a qualified witness to testify to the spreadsheet’s contents.

Center for Investigative Reporting v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2023

For 15 instance, “not every bit of information submitted to the government by a commercial entity 16 qualifies for protection under Exemption 4.” Pub. Citizen Health Rsch Grp, v. … Carlson, 504 F.3d at 1129. 26 Consequently, while there is no clearly defined limit for what is considered ‘commercial’ 27 within our court of appeals, the D.C.

Rankins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 2024

the administrative agency an opportunity to investigate 5 and conciliate the claim,” as the only issue with the complaint was the “employer [wa]s not 6 referred to by its proper legal name,” though the complaint “clearly … Threats of 20 physical violence can qualify as such outrageous conduct. See Kiseskey v.

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2020

A movant must establish its entitlement to attorneys’ fees under § 285 by a 4 preponderance of the evidence. … Again, “[t]hat [was] 23 plainly not so” because that provision “protects Amazon, not PersonalWeb, and therefore does not 24 in any way qualify the effect of the with-prejudice dismissal of PersonalWeb’s claims in the

McCurdy v. Deal

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

he 2 did not discontinue Plaintiff’s prescription for tramadol, there are no genuine disputes on 3 any material fact with respect to the medical treatment that Plaintiff received, and 4 Defendant is entitled to qualified … immunity.

Allen v. Schuyler

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2025

“[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly … A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409. III.

Firsov

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

The party 13 invoking subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. 14 See Lujan v. … Plaintiff 22 bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, and he has not done so. See Pebble Beach 23 Co., 453 F.3d at 1154.

Hester v. OMalley

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2024

Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. 22 Under this standard, an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or 23 combination of impairments only if his conclusion is “clearly established by medical evidence … The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease and back pain are 5 not severe is not clearly established by medical evidence in the record. 6 In determining whether an impairment is severe

United States v. Ailemen

986 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 24, 1997

Iheuk-wu went into this money order establishment twice, while Ailemen remained in the car. … Since she had agreed to cooperate in the earlier case, there was at least some possibility that, with an offer of immunity, she might have agreed to cooperate with the 1993 OCDETF team.

Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, N.D. California · May 15, 2018

In other words, "under the SPR Policy, a species will be able to qualify as an 'endangered species' in two different situations: (1) If it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, or (2) if it is in danger … For example, in one of the three cases in which "range" was used, 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (j)(2)(A), it was used in the phrase *1068 "current range," but the court found that this qualifier could "cut[ ] both ways." Id.

Sundaram v. Freshworks Inc

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

P. 23(a). 3 The Ninth Circuit has established a three-step process for the appointment of a lead 4 plaintiff under the PSLRA. … And as discussed in the next section, Sundaram’s 8 selected counsel is qualified and experienced in prosecuting securities class actions.

In Re Calpine Corporation Securities Litigation

288 F. Supp. 2d 1054 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2003

Defendants have filed a joint opposition to Plaintiffs’ Request, arguing that these documents do not qualify for judicial notice because they are not rulings by administrative agencies and because Plaintiffs’ Request mischaracterizes … But they do not provide any allegations establishing that Calpine did anything improper.

Foster v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 9, 2019

Common law 17 questions include whether the arbitration agreements are valid and whether the CDMRs qualify for 18 any of the exemptions under California law or the FLSA. … To be considered, the objections should (a) 6 clearly identify the case name and number (Foster v.

Perez v. DXC Technology Services LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 14, 2020

But the inclusion of 3 HPEC’s logo on Plaintiff’s paystub – which clearly identifies HPES as her employer (ECF 56-3) – 4 does not lead to a plausible inference that HPEC (let alone, DXC) exercised any power or control … “[C]ommon ownership or control alone is never enough to establish parent liability.” 11 Id. at 738.

Baglio v. Berryhill

District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2020

Accordingly, the ALJ ruled that Plaintiff was not disabled and therefore did not 2 qualify for disability and disability insurance benefits or qualify for SSI. … Mains’ opinion and failure to clearly address Dr. Yun’s and 17 Ms. Byrd’s opinions—were not harmless, as they infected the ALJ’s determinations throughout 18 the sequential analysis.

Miranda Dairy v. Harry Shelton Livestock, LLC

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

: (1) for breach of contract, alleging a breach of the Parties’ 8 verbal agreement whereby Defendant Shelton is alleged to have agreed, among other things, to sell 9 Plaintiffs’ heifers that were healthy, bred and qualified … the doubt about the existence of differences between Tennessee and California law as to 2 the three claims at bar, and their supposed materiality as asserted by Defendants, the court still 3 finds that California clearly

Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 3, 2022

In an attachment, she explains that she was paid less than a 3 similarly qualified man hired in April of 2018 to replace her managing a project.2 See dkt. 1-2 4 (attachment to complaint). … transferred the case to this district sua sponte based on its determination that the 3 conduct at issue occurred while Gonzalez was employed in California and the case lacked a 4 sufficient connection to New York to establish