Case law

Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2022

Infringers should not be allowed to immunize themselves from ongoing 2 willfulness by forcing patent owners into litigation. … Any such motion must include as an 7 exhibit a redlined version of the proposed amendment that clearly identifies all changes from 8 the amended complaint.

dotStrategy, Co. v. Twitter Inc

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2020

Fourth, it argues that dotStrategy has 18 failed to establish UCL standing. Id. at 17–18. 19 A. … DotStrategy clearly considers “bot” accounts (i.e., 23 those controlled entirely or primarily by a computer program rather than a human being) to be 24 fake. See FAC ¶ 17.

Cammas

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2026

that he has plausibly pleaded a Monell claim and that his claims are not 2 time-barred because (1) the accrual of his claims was delayed by the discovery rule25 and because 3 of his pending criminal charges, (2) he qualifies … statute of limitations was not complied with because of defective pleadings, when 18 a claimant was tricked by an adversary into letting a deadline expire, and when the EEOC’s notice 19 of the statutory period was clearly

Edlin v. Saul

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 2020

17 Plaintiff, who is now 37 years old, alleges disability due to being afflicted with human 18 immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), hepatitis C, as well as a type of cancer affecting people with 19 immune … Further, because step two is a de minimis screening device, “an 12 ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments 13 only when his conclusion is ‘clearly established by

Spillard v. Hoffman

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 2020

The Court dismissed the initial complaint with leave to amend because, inter 7 alia, the initial complaint was vague and conclusory in that it failed to state clearly what each 8 defendant did, when the action happened … Levin is not qualified to evaluate the adequacy of 14 the medical care provided by Humboldt County Jail. ECF No. 37 at 1-2, 27-28.

Burgos v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2020

unaware of any conflicts of interest in this matter, and there there is no 19 allegation that Plaintiffs or proposed class counsel have a conflict with any other class members. 20 Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified … “Generally, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, 19 its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain 20 results.” Ching v.

Merrell

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 2026

Another court in this District has explained that “[t]o the extent [the defendant] 12 contends that our cases delineate a category of ‘aspirational statements’ that are immune from 13 liability under the false advertising … Instead, even if the statement at 15 issue uses qualifiers like “aims to,” “wants to,” or “should”, “a court must still determine whether 16 it is extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance.” Id.

Bugarin v. All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.

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

In opposition, Bugarin contends that 5 ANA has not established that she entered into an arbitration agreement with ASAP. … The district court held that Capua could enforce the 14 arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary, finding that Air Europa clearly qualified as one 15 of the “travel suppliers or any companies offering products

Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2022

Defendants assert that Inmate Barrett is clearly not “unavailable.” Dkt. 9 No. 264 at 3. … Plaintiff’s arguments under Rule 801(d)(2) are also without merit 8 because none of the qualifiers under subsection (2) apply: (A) Inmate Barrett was not 9 speaking in a representative capacity; (B) as stated above,

WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited

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

The court will start with the Daubert motions. 20 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits experts qualified by “knowledge, 21 experience, skill, expertise, training, or education” to testify “in the form of an opinion … Intentional and knowing conduct that was clearly 10 committed without permission and not negligently or by accident is, in the court’s view, 11 sufficient to establish that the conduct was willful.

Mccausland v. PepsiCo, Inc.

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

Plaintiffs contend that consumers are unaware of this f1act because PepsiCo fails to clearly state the percentage of recommended daily limit 1 (Recommended Daily Value or %DV) of sugar for the Product the way it does … will promulgate regulations authorizing a health claim only when it d7e termines, based on the totality of publicly available scientific evidence … that there is s8i gnificant scientific agreement, among experts qualified

Bivins v. O'Malley

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 20, 2023

Such a conclusion must be “‘clearly established by medical evidence.’” Id. at 687 7 (quoting Titles II & XVI: Med. Impairments That Are Not Severe, SSR 85-28 (S.S.A. 1985)). … Plaintiff qualified in her own report of these activities that she could not 19 do so when fatigued. AR 819.

Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2025

Accordingly, “[t]o qualify as a 4 judicial admission, the admission must be ‘deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.’” In re Twitter, Inc. 5 Sec. Litig., No. 16-cv-05314, 2020 WL 5904407, at *1 (N.D. Cal. … Some of those 19 paragraphs clearly pertain only to the materiality of expert final review, rather than the materiality 20 of the alleged deception.

Kincheloe v. American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 2021

“The burden is on the 16 party seeking transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the balance of convenience 17 clearly favors transfer.” Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. … Plaintiffs 10 say this creates a “reasonable inference” that the March 2020 VEOP was targeted toward older 11 employees who did not need health benefits because they qualified for Medicare.

Tucker v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 2020

Aug. 21, 2014) 4 (court “cannot make a factual determination upon a motion to dismiss as to whether phosphoric 5 acid qualifies as an artificial flavor”); Gitson v. … Plaintiff argues that this is sufficient to establish standing 25 under Davidson v.

Beddingfield v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 8, 2024

It is unclear 11 at what “establishment” these acts took place. … establishment” for the purposes of her EPA claim.

Brower v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

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

ORDER AFFIRMING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER GRANTING IN 28 || PART AND DENYING IN PART APPELLEE MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 To qualify … App. 4th at 590 (“Transfer is clearly not synonymous with transmutation.”). 12 Likewise, the stock transfer alone does not provide an “express declaration” sufficient for 13 || transmutation.

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

563 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, N.D. California · May 29, 2008

However, the JID article clearly discloses that plasma samples were collected from HIV-infected individuals for use in the PCR process. … Lifson is similarly qualified to testify as an expert in the instant action. 15 .

Moore v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2022

Accordingly, the relevant 4 period that is before this court – and, thus, the relevant inquiry – is whether or not the record (if 5 sufficiently developed) establishes Plaintiff’s disability between the onset date ( … their reports, and also to allow for an objective 21 evaluation and weighing of each and every one of their respective findings and conclusions that 22 were negated or contradicted by the other’s report; and (3) to clearly

Metaxas v. Gateway Bank F.S.B.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2022

Metaxas had in March of 17 2010 clearly met the definition of disability as defined earlier in this report. … Further, it is well 15 established in the caselaw that there is no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty involving a 16 top hat plan.”).