Case law

Shurkin v. Golden State Vintners Inc.

471 F. Supp. 2d 998 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 30, 2006

This information thus gave context to the phrase “indefinitely suspended” and clearly advised the public that the transaction would not be proceeding. … No reliance can be established for events occurring after the purchase or sale of stock.

Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.

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

“Not every 20 case qualifying as exceptional under Section 285 will also qualify for sanctions pursuant to 21 Section 1927 or the court’s inherent power.” Id. … As PTOT has not 2 established fraud or the requisite bad faith, the court “enjoys no discretion to employ inherent 3 powers to impose sanctions” in the form of PTOT’s expert witness fees.

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

109 F. Supp. 3d 1185 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 9, 2015

But this dicta, in a footnote, does not clearly overrule Ting. … Namely, if- a lessor waited for the tenant’s six-month window to file *1234 suit to expire, the lessor could then sue the tenant “and be immune to any defense raised by the lessee.” Id.

Wilkins v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2019

, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 24 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Or. 1983) (prisoner with 106 separate actions before court clearly has no trouble getting papers to court, and claim dismissed as frivolous). 20

Amtrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 2023

/Specialty Claims 14 professional,” who opines that “[i]n the event that 180 Life’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is 15 granted, and this Court determines that 180 Life has met its burden to substantiate that it qualifies … “[T]his rule does not apply when it 13 clearly appears that the intention was to create a new corporation, either by reincorporating the 14 original corporation or by creating another and distinct corporation to succeed

Boston Retirement System v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2024

The 13 Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. … For the same reasons, Uber fails to establish good cause to seal the material in 16 BRS’s reply brief.

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2021

The Court therefore finds it appropriate to reconsider its prior holding. 11 As this Court has previously explained, the law is not “clear” about “what type of speech 12 qualifies as commercial speech.” … Such a basis for regulation clearly would be incompatible with 22 the First Amendment. 23 Pittsburgh Press Co. v.

Caldwell v. City of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2020

Caldwell sufficiently rebutted any presumption and has 25 established a triable issue as to causation.” Id. at 1116. … He states that ten complaints in one 1 against one officer “clearly required, under generally accepted police practices in the 1990s, that 2 supervisors intervene to determine the cause.” Id. at ¶ 78.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Vilsack

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2023

Although 5 “case law is admittedly nebulous as to what qualifies as a requisite diversion of resources for 6 organizational standing under Article III,” One Fair Wage, Inc. v. … Mar. 27, 2015) 13 (“Clearly a former judgment is not a collateral estoppel on issues which might have been raised 14 but were not; just as clearly it is a collateral estoppel on issues which were raised, even though

Tunick v. Takara Sake USA Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 15, 2025

11 Takara argues that common issues cannot predominate because consumers purchase the 12 Products at different points of purchase, including in stores that clearly … “Causation, on a class-wide basis, may be established by materiality.

Salas v. United Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2023

Id. 5 Plaintiff’s alleged disability is ongoing COVID-19 “brain fog,” described in the complaint 6 most clearly as a “neurologic deficit [that] manifested as fogginess … On the 14 other hand, “for some individuals COVID-19 can cause exceedingly severe, even deadly, 15 symptoms with long durations that would easily qualify as a FEHA disability.” Id.

Walker v. Saul

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

On April 11, 2017, the agency denied 15 Plaintiff’s claim, finding she did not qualify for disability benefits. AR 103-07. … Isono was a qualified medical examiner in Plaintiff’s workers’ 13 compensation claim.

Brandon Gay v. Pacific Steel Group

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 15, 2023

Perkins is in a position to 7 authenticate agreements that PSG entered and to lay the proper foundation to establish that 8 documents in PSG’s possession are qualifying business records.” Id. … Defendant has 17 established that the CBAs govern the named Plaintiffs’ employment. See Berber, Dkt.

In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation

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

Singer’s expert testimony, plaintiffs had the burden of 10 establishing its admissibility over Google’s objections. See Southland Sod Farms v. … Singer 3 used, the IIA assumptions of the logit model that all apps are substitutes and substitution is 4 proportional to shares are clearly false,” because “[s]ome of the apps within a category are not 5 substitutes

Dutrisac v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 2, 2024

App’x 947, 949 (9th Cir. 2016). 12 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to establish that service was 13 proper because she has failed to establish that ST Inc. is a “general manager” of … See Jane Doe 17 #21, 93 Cal.App.5th at 1211 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1211 n.15 (“The plaintiffs . . . do not 18 point us to any allegation of a cover up that clearly predated a plaintiff’s alleged assault.”

Schneider v. YouTube, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2023

No. 173 at 8 n.4 (“YouTube does not contend that 9 the TOS License fully immunizes its users from infringement.”). … There is no element of 15 surprise because the one-year limitations period in the TOS “is clearly identifiable and printed in 16 all caps.” Darnaa, 756 F. App’x at 676; see also Kilgore v.

McKellar v. Mithril Capital Management LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2020

She was well-qualified for these roles. McKellar is a Harvard Law 7 School graduate, member of the California Bar, and has worked for Judge Marilyn L. … But that is because waiver is a “question of 20 arbitrability” which is presumptively for a court to determine, “unless the parties clearly and 21 unmistakably provide otherwise.”

Chang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 2022

Second, it must establish that at least one of the bases for certification 7 under Rule 23(b) is met. … A cy pres award must qualify as “the next best distribution” to giving the funds to 14 class members. Dennis, 697 F.3d at 865 (quotation omitted).

United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

178 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2016

Category (d), PG&E “hydrotest-ing over 650 miles of pipeline,” PG&E Mot. at iii, falls within the Government’s argument that “post-accident tests.. .rarely qualify as subsequent remedial measures, because they are investigative … But again, this evidence has “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,” Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 180 , 117 S.Ct. 644 ; this time, that throwing documents away is clearly “bad conduct.”

Bernstein v. United States Department of State

974 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 1997

We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium. Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2344 . … However, Count VI of plaintiff's supplemental complaint clearly alleges that the President’s actions exceeded his authority under the IEEPA. 12 .