Case law

Movahedi

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 29, 2025

But if a plaintiff 20 fails to establish either of the first two prongs, “the jurisdictional inquiry ends and the case must 21 be dismissed.” Boschetto v. … Williams clearly created his relationship to California by choosing 25 to reside here during the time alleged in the complaint—the case law cited by Williams concerns 26 defendants who were not present in the forum

Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 11, 2023

The record clearly shows that there was a notice-and-comment period beginning on December 19 18, 2019. See Dkt. No. 59-3, First Administrative R., at 1. … But Defendants are correct that it is well-established 26 that the FRA creates no private right of action to enforce such policies. See Kissinger v.

Magic Link Garment Ltd. v. ThirdLove, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2020

1 buyer which has already received $1.7 million worth of product for which payment was 2 overdue, was over the credit limit the seller/creditor was willing to provide, and clearly 3 was refusing to communicate about … As established above, defendant accepted all 65,076 23 of the PO 542 bras. Plaintiff failed to advance any argument establishing defendant’s 24 inability to show notification under § 2607.

Genomma Lab Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Mprezas, Inc.

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

“If a 18 petition is filed ‘[w]ithin five years from the date of the registration,’ then ‘any ground that would 19 have prevented registration in the first place qualifies as a valid ground for cancellation.’” … Applicants for trademark registrations are obligated to disclose 14 “conflicting rights” of other trademark users where those rights are “clearly established,” 15 including by registration of the mark.

Hampton v. Kijakazi

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

On review, this 9 Court’s duty is to determine “whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical 10 evidence clearly established” Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment. Webb v. … Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999) 17 (stating the ALJ is “simply not qualified to interpret raw medical data in functional terms”); Rohan 18 v.

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Marmoratus) v. Pacific Lumber Co.

880 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 1995

First, EPIC has established that THP-237 is suitable habitat for the marbled murrelet. … All of the surveyors were certified by the State of California as qualified to perform marbled murrelet surveys. (Kerns, Tr. 9/7/94 at 23-24.)

Procter & Gamble Co. v. QuantifiCare Inc.

288 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2017

Furthermore, " '[a] plaintiff may plead [him]self out of court' " if he "plead[s] facts which establish that he cannot prevail on his ... claim." Weisbuch v. … As such, it qualifies as a "specific asserted improvement in [facial image processing]" instead of "a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery."

Killgore v. Specpro Professional Services, LLC

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

Only the latter two categories qualify as protected 6 disclosures. Id. … It is not at issue because, as established, 17 Defendant has shown no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s 1102.5 claim.

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

897 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2012

The Cooley document does not specifically mention establishing a document retention policy at Rambus. … Clearly, the Federal Circuit’s determination with respect to the disclosure obligation had a significant impact on the course of the present litigation.

Dawson v. Porch.com Inc

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2024

Congress was 18 clearly focused on the unique problems posed by the use of random or sequential number 19 … extent Ehrlichman built, authorized, directed, and participated in GoSmith’s text message 13 campaign, his conduct would qualify

Wilkins v. Lozano

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 2021

The federal court on habeas review may 16 not issue the writ “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the 17 relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously … Nor do they clearly establish ‘a controlling legal standard’ for 21 evaluating discretionary decisions to exclude the kind of evidence at issue here.

Bloom Energy Corporation v. Badger

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

Respondents fail to establish that the Bloom D&Os were even 15 parties to the arbitration. … Kaiser Cement & Gypsum 8 Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 In this case, respondents assert that Aragaki “clearly received significant personal 10 benefits,” including “

M. v. County of San Mateo

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

The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish the existence 12 of a material fact that may affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. 13 Anderson v. … In light of the 8 foregoing analysis, the Court DENIES AS MOOT defendants’ request for summary judgment on the 9 issue of qualified immunity. 10 C.

Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service

970 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2013

“Regulations will be established based on the best available information. … Exceptions to this moratorium clearly evidence a concern with the relationship between the activity engaged in and its effect on marine mammals and their ecosystem.

Motul S.A. v. USA Wholesale Lubricant

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2023

VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2009); Clearly v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 3 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1994). … Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 634 25 (9th Cir. 2008). 26 A mark qualifies as famous for the purposes of a dilution claim “if it is widely recognized 27 by the

Pinn v. Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation, Inc.

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

Pinn alleges that 6 “[o]n August 2, 2021, CCCF contracted with DMS to obtain live transfers of qualified ‘leads,’ 7 potential customers of CCCF[.]” … Parties may 22 delegate gateway issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator if they “clearly and unmistakably” agree to 23 do so. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Philips v. Munchery Inc.

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

Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs’ counsel is “qualified, experienced, and 23 generally able to conduct the class action litigation.” See Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 303 24 F.R.D. 611, 617 (N.D. … The Court is satisfied 12 that in its current form the notice clearly and completely explains the settlement to class members. 13 C.

Chaquico v. Jefferson Starship, Inc.

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

Defendants, in turn, argue that the 3 context and wording of the provision clearly demonstrate that it relates only to Chaquico’s 4 publishing royalties, and to “fees, commissions, or other charges” imposed by Thompson … prefer to remain confidential, the data does not self-evidently represent 25 information that could be used to the competitive disadvantage of defendants or the involved 6 third-parties, or otherwise plainly qualify

Lemke-Vega v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

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

not asked to decide whether a used car with an unexpired warranty sold by a third party reseller 12 qualifies … Cal. 4 2017) (noting “[t]he plain language of the section clearly only creates obligations on behalf of ‘the 5 distributor or retail seller making express warranties with respect to used consumer goods (and not 6

Strezsak v. Ardelyx Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 2024

Defendants’ opinion that the trial data demonstrated “clinically relevant” 27 outcomes does not appear to qualify as “highly subjective” corporate puffery, but that statement is 1 allegations “give rise to a strong … Plaintiff did not allege these facts or clearly concede them as true. Dkt. No. 105 at 23–24. Nor does the SEC filing cited by Defendants establish these facts. See Ex. P (compiling 27 Forms 4).