Case law

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.”).

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 .

In re SVB Financial Group Securities Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 13, 2025

Alleged Statements are Not Forward Looking 24 Defendants contend that Statement Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11-15, 17, and 18 are immunized by the 25 PSLRA’s safe harbor for forward looking statements. … Not one of Defendants’ Statements at issue 6 includes qualifying language that indicates the HTM classification was something other than a 7 fact.

Rothfarb v. Hambrecht

649 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 10, 1986

Office conferences, unless clearly identified as relating to ah ongoing activity of benefit to the class, are in general recommended to be disallowed or, at most, partially allowed. … John Torkelson is a qualified Chartered Financial Analyst and Senior Security Analyst and President of Princeton Venture Research, Inc.

Uschold v. NSMG Shared Services, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 8, 2019

Such notice must clearly 21 state the following: 22 (i) the nature of the action; 23 (ii) the definition of the class … The party requesting fees bears the burden “of submitting billing records to establish 7 that the number of hours it requested are reasonable,” Gonzalez v.

In Re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation

615 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2009

The indemnification provision “does not necessarily preclude personal liability for these directors because [indemnification] is not a grant of absolute immunity.” Bergstein v. … This complaint cannot "relate back” to the state court action, as it is clearly a separately filed claim from this federal action. 2 .

Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 2, 2021

As MBUSA itself quotes in their opposition, in response to MBUSA’s inquiry as to 20 which iteration of the 722.9 transmissions are defective, Plaintiff’s expert Okcuoglu clearly states 21 his position: “[b]efore I do … Motion to Strike Expert Report of Murat Okcuoglu 18 MBUSA does not dispute that Okcuoglu is qualified to offer an expert opinion.

Goorin Bros., Inc. v. GoldStarHat LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2025

This 4 injury qualifies as irreparable harm and merits permanent injunctive relief. See CytoSport, Inc. v. 5 Vital Pharms., Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1080 (E.D. Cal.), aff’d, 348 F. … A 23 default judgment like the one here can sometimes establish as much.

Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

This is sufficient to establish commonality. … Those notice requirements, which do not relate to contract formation, clearly are 4 governed by Michigan law under this Court’s prior Dismissal Order.

VW CREDIT LEASING LTD v. The City of San Mateo

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 7, 2023

Ninth Circuit observed that caselaw “support[s] the proposition that 5 procedural due process does not require pre-deprivation notice and a hearing before 6 impoundments,” but noted that in those cases, “the police clearly … San Mateo does not develop this 26 argument and offers no support for the claim that state law authorization of the retention of the 27 vehicle pending payment of the outstanding charges immunizes it from liability

B v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 2022

In rejecting such testimony, the ALJ need not cite the specific 10 record so long as “arguably germane reasons” for dismissing the testimony are noted, even though 11 the ALJ does “not clearly link his determination … Along the same lines, “an individual’s statements of symptoms alone are not 16 enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or disability.”

In re FASTLY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

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

Defendants counter that the document from a 18 government source is clearly reliable, and the data is accurate. … accompanied by 22 meaningful cautionary language, the cautionary language used by defendants is almost 23 identical to language approved by the Ninth Circuit in instances in which forward-looking 24 statements were immunized

Angue v. Kijakazi

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

While claimants must carry the burden of demonstrating that they qualify for benefits, the law does not leave them entirely to their own 20 devices; as such, lapses and omissions in pleading or procedure cannot be … An impairment is non-severe at step two only if the evidence establishes 23 a slight abnormality that has only a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. Smolen, 80 24 F.3d at 1290.

Rubalcaba v. R&L Carriers Shared Services, L.L.C.

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

While, 7 as Plaintiff recognizes, the theoretical allegation that “Defendant is liable for section 510 and 8 section 1194 violations” qualifies as legal conclusion (MTD Opp. at 19), Plaintiff’s actual 9 allegation … Spectrum Sec. 6 Servs., Inc. affirmed that employees had “clearly suffered an injury since they could not determine 7 from the wage statements the correct wages to which they were entitled.” 13 Cal. 5th 93, 120 8

Miller v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2024

Importantly, an impairment must be 8 established by objective medical evidence (medical signs, laboratory findings, or both) from an 9 acceptable medical source and cannot be established on the basis of a claimant’s … That statement is clearly erroneous, because there does exist a medical record 24 from the relevant period.

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 4, 2022

Lee also does not clearly 26 allege that West made the decision to subject her neighbor, a white man, to less 27 enforcement under the city’s building code. … Safety laws such as 15 building or construction code provisions do not qualify as “land use regulations” under 16 RLUIPA, at least where they do not explicitly reference zoning laws. Anselmo v. Cty.

In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2020

Up to 20 that point, the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Federal Circuits had held such patent 21 settlements generally immune from antitrust attack. … Perhaps, enjoying the facts now known, “sole exclusivity” clearly 23 refers to the no-AG provision.

AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2024

“Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if 10 the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” 11 Id. at 1352 (citing … Clearly, the patentee thought otherwise, having 22 chosen to include this negative limitation in the definition of the term.

Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 2024

Lawson bears the 15 burden of establishing constitutional standing and must maintain his personal interest in the 16 dispute at all stages of the litigation. TransUnion LLC, 141 S. … Res, 529 U.S. at 773. 26 In Magadia, the Ninth Circuit held PAGA does not qualify for the qui tam exception to 27 Article III’s standing requirement. 999 F.3d at 676-78.

Warner v. Friedman

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 9, 2020

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 1 remedies against Defendants, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”); and 2 (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The moving party has the burden of 3 establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 4 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R. Civ.