Case law

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).

Tigo Energy Inc. v. SunSpec Alliance

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2023

Cir. 2008). 9 An equivalent to a claim limitation can be proved based on the “well established ‘function-way- 10 result’ or ‘insubstantial differences’ test.” … Again, as I explained before, I know of no rule that states that the alleged infringing 9 party must require that the accused system be utilized for its use to qualify as infringement. 10 Finally, SunSpec questions

The Women's Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

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

“The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal 12 jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements,” which at the pleadings stage means 13 “clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating each element.” … Unlike here, two of those cases involved claims challenging specific, 16 mandatory, procedural rules established by law, rights were not qualified by the agency’s 17 determination of whether substantive standards were

Hutson v. AMCO Insurance Co Inc

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

But this allegation clearly runs against 23 well-established California law that a lender-borrower relationship in and of itself is not enough to 24 establish a fiduciary relationship. … App. 4th 334, 341 (2007) (“[A] party not named in the contract may qualify as a 13 beneficiary under it where the contracting parties must have intended to benefit the unnamed party 14 and the agreement reflects that

Renati v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 25, 2019

These allegations describe specific incidents when plaintiffs were passed over for 13 promotions that went to less qualified men or learned that similarly-situated male employees made 14 more than they did. … Wal-Mart’s motion to transfer this case is not 13 “clearly inconsistent” with its present motion to sever Plantiffs’ claims. See Mot. to Transfer at 4– 14 7 (dkt. 16); Mot. to Sever at 8–12.

Chung v. County of Santa Clara

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

Moreover, Chung 19 cites no authority establishing that a district attorney is equated with the County for which they 20 work for purposes of establishing privity of argument. … Glassford, 201 Cal. 1 qualify as sufficiently ‘judicial’ for collateral estoppel purposes, need not be identical to a judicial 2 trial, so long as basic due process considerations are satisfied.” Basurto v.

Armstead v. Saul

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

He did not qualify for the C criteria because he 7 is able to care for his own needs at a very baseline level. Id. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter 7 how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v.

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont

District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2022

. § 1983, any person who, “under color of” state law, subjects any 4 person “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 5 Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in … Safety laws such as 18 building or construction code provisions do not qualify as “land use regulations” under 19 RLUIPA, at least where they do not explicitly reference zoning laws. Anselmo v. Cty.

Blair v. INFORM Software Corporation

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

To the extent that INFORM says in its reply that the 2017 changes were too insubstantial to qualify as a modification, Reply – ECF No. 17 at 7, a district court need not consider 1 forum will not be disturbed unless … June 25, 2014) (clause’s 19 failure to specify particular AAA rules created multiple ambiguities that contributed to clause’s 20 failure to clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability), aff’d, 840 F.3d 1016 (9th

Mewawalla v. Middleman

District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 2022

In contrast, Plaintiff’s false promise claims against Stanley Middleman and FMC 21 clearly allege what Stanley Middleman promised to Plaintiff during the course of his employment 22 contract negotiations. … Steinberg, 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 592 (2003) (“An exception to the agent’s 12 immunity, for conduct undertaken for personal advantage, is consistent with the immunity rule, 13 because pursuit of a personal interest renders

Callahan v. PeopleConnect Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2021

Thus, “‘[a]bsent express authority, it is established that an attorney 20 does not have implied plenary authority to enter into contracts on behalf of his client.’” … Counsel’s action in accessing the Classmates.com website and registering for two 18 accounts just before filing suit were clearly done in the course of counsel’s representation of 19 Plaintiffs for and in anticipation

Yockey v. Salesforce, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 2023

“Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff 27 must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Spokeo, Inc. v. … establish that his 9 communications were rerouted contemporaneously with transmission.

In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

‘he 8 need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case.’” … GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 8 Because the Complaint does not clearly and conclusively establish the damages affirmative

Aldrich v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

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

Plaintiff 19 Aldrich qualified for a spot to compete for Team USA Track and Field at the World Junior 20 Championships in August 1996. Id. ¶ 159. The competition was in Sydney, Australia. … Plaintiffs use this relationship to establish a causal 21 chain.

Jain v. Unilodgers, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Kelly, 863 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The general 6 equitable powers of federal courts should not enable a party suing in diversity to obtain an 7 injunction if state law clearly rejects the availability of that … Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 Nevertheless, “intangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and goodwill, 23 qualify as irreparable harm.”

Inventec Corporation v. X Corp.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 15, 2026

Such 9 racks clearly qualify as goods under California law, as they are tangible, movable objects. See 10 Cal. Comm. Code § 2105. … Finally, with respect to reliance, Inventec asserts that X’s position “cannot be 11 reconciled” with its other arguments that Inventec has not established an enforceable contract for 12 the non-standard racks.

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2023

If it cannot establish liability under CUTSA, it is not entitled to relief.”), 5 disapproved on other grounds by Kwikset Corp. v. … The CUTSA preempts a plaintiff’s claims based on misappropriation of information 22 that does not qualify as a trade secret 23

Sanderlin v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 23, 2025

Id. 5 In their Qualified Non-Opposition, Defendants accept that character evidence is generally 6 inadmissible in civil rights cases. See Dkt. No. 188, Qual. Non-Opp. to Plfs.’ MIL No. 3 at 2. … Under Federal 16 Rule of Evidence 701, opinion testimony by lay witnesses is “testimony in the form of an opinion 17 . . . that is (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding

Pardini v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 2023

Admin., 644 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 2011). 20 Here, the record clearly establishes that Plaintiff received a hearing acknowledgement 21 letter which set forth the right to representation and included … The assessments 18 provided by the ALJ clearly discharged this duty. As to Dr.

PG&E Corporation v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc..

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2022

Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well- 18 established that expert testimony concerning an ultimate issue is not per se improper.”) (citations 19 omitted and cleaned up). … Two of them disprove AECOM’s point because they are post-trial cases 22 where the courts clearly allowed testimony on MCAA factors analysis. See N. Am. Mech., Inc. v. 23 Walsh Const. Co. II, LLC, 132 F.