Case law

Silver v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2020

The FCC, however, interpreted the TCPA to allow a 12 consumer to revoke his or her consent “in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses 13 his or her desire not to receive further calls, and that the consumer is … not limited to using 14 only a revocation method that the caller has established as one that it will accept.”

Lenk v. Semiconductor Component Industries LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 16, 2021

Defendant argues that this was an artificial attempt to establish a California venue. … Further, “[t]he burden is on the party seeking transfer to show 12 that when these factors are applied, the balance of convenience clearly favors transfer.”

Ramirez v. HV Global Management Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 2022

“[I]f a defendant provided no evidence or clearly inadequate evidence 1 claim a $0 value.” Id. … Scholz is qualified to render these 26 opinions as the Vice President of Human Resources. Scholz Decl. ¶ 1.

Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation

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

Provision Requiring "Qualified" Personnel 10 The SOW, in a section titled "Key Personnel," provides as follows: 11 Tachyus shall supply personnel who are qualified to perform the services … According to Crescent Point, 7 advising such use of significantly less water would have been understood as "clearly 8 erroneous" to anyone with "a basic understanding of tight oil production" (see FAC 9 ¶ 157), such

James v. Allstate Insurance Company

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

. § 2510.3, no such claim is alleged in 1 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing a “constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding 2 disclosure of personal matters clearly encompasses medical information and its … “While the substantive reach of [the UCL] 20 remains expansive,” to establish statutory standing to enforce the UCL’s provisions, a plaintiff 21 must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient

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 .

Little Seeds Children's Center, Inc., et al. v. Citibank, N.A.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 2025

Plaintiffs concede that financial institutions are exempt and do not dispute that Defendant 9 qualifies. Opp. at 22. The Court thus DISMISSES this claim without leave to amend. Cf. Shah 10 v. Cap. One Fin. … One established equitable principle is that 9 equitable remedies will not be awarded when there is an “adequate remedy at law.”

La Clinica De La Raza v. Biden

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 2020

Similarly, the public charge provision 7 excludes persons who are “a qualified alien described in section 1641(c).” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1182(a)(4)(E)(iii). … This order clearly defined the order of 16 succession and controls over any previous version of the order of succession.

Silver v. Stripe, Inc.

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

By contrast, the privacy policy here clearly discloses the 1 including one’s financial information and web activity. 2 Thus, the Court finds that plaintiffs consented to the collection of the data … Plaintiffs allege that Stripe qualifies as a business entity under the statute because Stripe 14 conducts business in Utah.

Crown Energy Services, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 8, 2021

It goes on to explain, however, that “[t]he word ‘insured’ means any 22 person or organization qualifying as such under Section II – Who Is An Insured.” Id. … “To establish a bad faith claim, the insured must show that (1) 23 benefits due under the policy were withheld and (2) the reason for withholding the benefits was 24 unreasonable or without proper cause.”

Oracle Corp. v. Falotti

187 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2001

Under those circumstances, the stock options were clearly contemplated as compensation. That is not the case here, where Mr. … Hadorn establishes that as a matter of law, he had “total working incapacity” and could not be terminated.

Awad v. Dr. Birbenk

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

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Does not name any Defendant who did not act but is linked solely in his or 26 her respondent superior capacity or against whom Plaintiff cannot allege facts that would establish 27 either supervisorial or municipal

La Clinica De La Raza v. Biden

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 7, 2020

Similarly, the public charge provision 7 excludes persons who are “a qualified alien described in section 1641(c).” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1182(a)(4)(E)(iii). … This order clearly defined the order of 16 succession and controls over any previous version of the order of succession.

Lou v. Accenture United States Group Health Plan

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2024

Tr. 36:11–15. 16 Notably, the language of the agreement is not the only thing that persuades the Court that 17 Plaintiff’s ERISA claims were clearly released: the parties’ conduct does, too. … The Court disagrees, and concludes that both entities qualify as 1 The Separation Agreement broadly defines “Released Parties” in the General Release as 2 “Accenture LLP, its parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates

Kifle v. Youtube LLC

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

SAC ¶ 56. 4 Kifle alleges that he “owns” a “pending U.S. federal trademark application for Mereja 5 TV,” and both the Mereja TV logo and his show title are “clearly displayed on all his 6 works.” … Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). 6 To establish secondary infringement, i.e., “contributory” or “vicarious” 7 infringement, a plaintiff must first “establish that there has been direct infringement

BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2022

Some Sleekcraft factors favor Billfloat, 1 • The two word marks at issue – SmartBiz and Smart Business Funding – clearly 2 have some similarity. … Legal Standard 1 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an

Gowan v. Stryker Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 2021

To establish a prima facie claim for discrimination under FEHA, Ms. … To 3 establish a constructive discharge, an Ms.

John Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

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

. § 1964(c) (emphasis added). 11 “[T]o establish statutory standing pursuant to RICO, a plaintiff must show . . . that 12 his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property”. Shulman v. … Here, the complaint clearly confirms that plaintiff 2 consented to hip replacement surgery. The question is whether the surgery that actually 3 occurred was inherently different from that to which he consented.

Daugherty v. Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals Limited

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2025

“[T]hese allegations outline a theory of economic injury that 5 qualifies as an injury in fact under established Article III standing caselaw.” Bowen v. … As stated, the Acne Monograph regulates 10 the BPO Products and clearly specifies the mandatory labeling requirements. See 21 C.F.R. § 11 333.350(c).

Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 2024

“A witness who is qualified as an expert 7 by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or 8 otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized … The proponent of the testimony must establish admissibility by a 18 preponderance of the evidence. Bourjaily v.