Case law

Doe v. Becerra

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

See e.g., Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1207 (“Rodriguez Diaz was detained for 23 fourteen months following his first bond hearing, we will assume that his detention qualifies as 24 ‘prolonged' in a general sense . . . … interests – that is, Petitioner’s appearance at removal 16 proceedings and preventing him from committing any crimes – can be achieved without his 17 imprisonment, then the second and third Mathews factors would also clearly

Chase v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2023

Id. at 9–10. 2 Plaintiffs’ motion does not clearly address the question of whether their FCRA claim ever 3 became part of the case before the Superior Court. … The closest it comes to acknowledging any 4 uncertainty as to that issue is in one sentence of the introduction section that begins with a 5 qualifying phrase: “To the extent that the FCRA claim asserted in arbitration

Smith v. Apple, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 2022

If it comes to a Producing Party’s attention that designated material does not qualify for 21 protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Producing 22 Party must promptly … The Parties’ entry into this Order shall not 8 preclude or prejudice either Party from arguing for or against any designation, establish any 9 presumption that a particular designation is valid, or alter the burden of

Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2024

The motion to strike also does not comply with the Court’s Standing Order, which requires that such motions 26 “clearly specify the paragraphs … Inc., 922 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A witness can qualify as an expert through 8 practical experience in a particular field[.]”). The Court rejects The Happy Group’s contention 9 that Dr.

Seals

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2026

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does 22 not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … That James S.’s mother “helps him 18 with tasks and does chores for him does not clearly establish he is incapable of such chores and 19 tasks.” AR 43. The ALJ found Nurse Harris-Muchell’s opinion that James S.

ACE American Insurance Company v. Old Republic General Insurance Corporation

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

Therefore, it contends that Layton qualifies as an additional 20 insured under the Scottsdale Policies. Id. ¶ 19. … While it admits that Mint included SVG in a list of 27 negligent subcontractors in the Underlying Action, it argues that Mint did not clearly allege that 1 was not obligated to defend Layton Construction in the Underlying

Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2023

As Defendant notes, the FDA has explicitly refused to expand this regulation to 5 other qualifiers, like “wholesome” or “good for you.” … This involves establishing 4 “sufficient contacts” between the alleged misconduct and the state.

Vanessa W. v. SSA Commissioner

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2026

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter 26 how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (emphasis in 27 original) (footnote omitted). … Under this standard, an ALJ may find that a 23 claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only if his 24 conclusion is “clearly established by medical evidence.”

Naseri

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 2026

Having established jurisdiction over the federal claims, there is supplemental jurisdiction over Naseri’s remaining state law claims. … To the extent that Naseri’s harassment claim is based on other acts or protected classes, she must clearly identify those acts and protected classes.

Doe One v. CVS Health Corporation

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

In order to qualify for 2 lower “in-network” drug prices, Plaintiffs must obtain their HIV/AIDS medications from 3 Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy (“CSP”), which delivers medications in one of two 4 ways: … SAC ¶ 135. 12 As to the first basis for finding indirect receipt of federal funds, Plaintiffs have not clearly 13 alleged that the PBM Defendants are in a position

Kane v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A.

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

Such findings are clearly erroneous if they are 13 “illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.” … But this does not 5 establish his intent to reside in the San Jose property.

United States v. Marshank

777 F. Supp. 1507 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 1991

Although Crawford and Ohlgart had never been indicted and were not at that time under investigation, they wished to dissociate themselves from the drug business by providing information to the government in exchange for immunity … Clearly, there was no knowing and intelligent waiver by the defendant in this case.

Lopez v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2024

Grasso obtained a delayed Mexican birth registration that he 19 “assumed established Mr. … Id. at *19. 8 The court held that the conditions of confinement negligence claim is barred by sovereign 9 immunity and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

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

In Activis, the 9 Supreme Court rejected the proposition that reverse payment settlements were immune from 10 antitrust scrutiny and held “large and unjustified” reverse payments “can bring with [them] the risk 11 … The Supreme Court did not clearly define either term in 13 Activis.

Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2020

The Guide even advises, “[i]f significant corrosion is 18 apparent or suspected, then the framing members, fasteners and connectors should be inspected 19 by a qualified engineer or qualified inspector. … Under 27 Florida law, “[i]n order to establish fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must allege and establish 1) 1 and 3) plaintiff exercised reasonable care and diligence in seeking to discover the facts that form

Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc.

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

Cal. 1999). 1 The proponent of an expert’s opinions bears the burden of establishing their admissibility. 2 Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996). … E.l.f.’s disclosure of additional functionality opinions in May’s and Colby’s expert reports was 17 clearly late, and Benefit was deprived of an opportunity to conduct fact discovery into those 18 additional theories

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2020

“The litigation privilege grants absolute immunity 12 from tort liability for communications made in relation to judicial proceedings.” Mindys 13 Cosmetics, Inc. v. … He describes jobs for which he was qualified and applied, and speculates that he did 9 not obtain employment because of negative information provided by MPS. See Proposed FAC ¶¶ 10 159-170.

Hardy v. Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2023

A cy 14 pres award must qualify as “the next best distribution” to giving the funds to class members. 15 Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012). … The Revised Notices describe the Plan of 20 Allocation, which while lengthy and complicated, is more clearly explained than in the prior 21 version.

Seti v. Robertson

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2024

Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding prison guard who 14 engaged in “vulgar same-sex trash talk” with inmates was entitled to qualified immunity) and 15 Somers v. … Summer, 860 F.2d 328, 333 8 (9th Cir. 1988), a showing that is required to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth 9 Amendment.

Lenzini v. DCM Services, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2021

To 25 determine whether an alleged injury qualifies, the Court employs a two-step test: “(1) whether the 26 statutory provisions at issue were established to protect the plaintiff's concrete interests (as 27 opposed … See id. at 10 545 (“Adams allegedly received debt collection letters from Skagit Bonded Collectors that failed 11 to clearly identify his current creditor.