Case law

Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2021

Second, it must establish that at least one of 10 the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met. … Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974). 5 With respect to the content of the notice itself, the notice must clearly and concisely state 6 in plain, easily understood language:

Pamintuan

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2026

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 9 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … It is only “rare circumstances 24 that result in a direct award of benefits” and “only when the record clearly contradicted an ALJ’s 25 conclusory findings and no substantial evidence within the record supported the

Alvarez v. Saul

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

He opined that Ruben A. was qualified for skilled, sedentary work. AR 64. 4 C. … The ALJ, however, disregarded this 17 opinion and found that the evidence “d[id] not establish a history of pain and limitation of motion 18 in any weight bearing-joint [sic] or of the spine.” Id. at 504-05.

Roles v. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2021

Thus, under the Interim Guidance, the encampments at issue present 1 place permanently is clearly not viable. … In 3 closing Ashby East and the Caltrans ROW, Defendants are expected to comply with the 4 procedures for removal established in the Sanchez state court case.

Albarran

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2025

24 2 Respondents also contend that “reinvolvement with the criminal justice system” can qualify … Burden on Respondents Versus Petitioner’s Interest 6 Turning to Mathews’s third prong, Respondents aver that “the government clearly has a 7 strong interest in preventing aliens from remain[ing] in the United States

Chattopadyay v. Evolve Vacation Rental Network Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2023

The plaintiff also does not plausibly plead her discrimination claims because she does 7 not plausibly plead that but for the alleged discrimination, she would have qualified to contract 8 with Evolve. … Similarly, unlike the 25 sales cases, the claims here do not “clearly arise out of and relate to Defendants’ conduct of selling 26 those same products to [the forum] residents.”

Drakeford v. Capital Benefit, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 8, 2022

The jury clearly believed the Drakefords – rejecting the 23 intentional fraud claim that might have otherwise established knowledge of falsity – and found 24 their conduct was negligent only. … Nov. 30, 2010) (noting cases require a showing of a “standard or routine way of 10 operating” and although “courts routinely refuse to find a pattern or practice where a plaintiff 11 alleges only a single [Qualified

Falconer v. Martin O'Malley

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

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 12 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … “A generalized assertion of functional problems is not enough to 10 establish disability at step three.”

Limson v. Bridge Property Management Company

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2019

Under that test, a UCL plaintiff must show 14 (1) “a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic 15 injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result … Therefore, the Court concludes 26 that Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing under the UCL.

Ho v. Saul

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

Acenas found a “complete lack of mental 21 limitations[,]” which was “clearly inconsistent with the longitudinal evidence.” … record is fully developed and that if the improperly rejected evidence (both his own 18 testimony about his limitations and the observations of his treatment providers) were credited as 19 true this evidence would establish

Libitzky v. United States

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 2023

. § 7422, the United States has waived its 19 sovereign immunity for civil refund actions where a claim for refund or credit has been “duly filed 20 with the Secretary” of Treasury according to the relevant laws and … The burden of establishing that a case is within the Court’s limited jurisdiction “rests 10 upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.

White

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 6, 2026

Id. 14 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements alone were insufficient to establish a medically 15 determinable impairment and that her allegations lacked supporting evidence. Id. … The ALJ found that the 14 anxiety and depressive symptoms were “clearly not severe” and so could not be debilitating. Id. 15 The ALJ also considered examining experts’ opinions. Drs.

Harris v. Broomfield

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

And this allegation also is not clearly false, as Defendants have provided evidence of both the non-compliant purchases (a list of Plaintiff’s 23 … California 16 ordered all institutions to implement quarterly evaluations of all inmates in religious diet 17 programs, including, but not limited to, the RMAP, to determine whether inmates who have 18 previously qualified

Shah

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 2026

Although “[t]he third prerequisite of good faith and reasonable conduct . . . is less clearly defined in the cases[,] [ ] in 11 Addison v. … Pogue, 121 Cal.App.4th 282, 292 12 (2004) (“Even where no duty to disclose would otherwise exist, where one does speak[,] he must 13 speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify

Toelle v. Jusino

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2023

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 25 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … United States, 405 F.2d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 22 1969) (“[Section 4042] does not impose a duty on any officials who may be responsible to the 23 Bureau of Prisons, and does not establish a civil cause of action against

In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2022

In this pharmaceutical 25 reverse-payment action, plaintiffs would have had the burden of establishing defendants’ 26 violation of the rule of reason then proving a causal antitrust injury. See FTC v. … This order also finds that the timesheets do not clearly indicate significant 2 overstaffing, duplication, inefficiency, or too many teleconferences. See Gutierrez, 2015 WL 3 2438274, at *6.

Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Quantum Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2025

Addendum at 1. 22 For a provision to operate as a condition precedent, “it must clearly appear from the 23 agreement itself that the parties intended [to do so].” … Cal. 2006). 20 Statements that the declarant had personal knowledge and was familiar with the facts, 21 alone, is not sufficient to establish personal knowledge—there must be a sufficient 22 foundation to establish

Sumotext Corp. -v- Zoove, Inc.

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

MIL No. 1”). 9 As a general matter, Plaintiff is correct that “the promotion of self-interest alone does not 10 invoke the rule of reason to immunize otherwise illegal conduct.” Otter Tail Power Co. v. … 3 Defendants cite “Goedde Tr. 123:9-19” for this quote but have failed to attach that portion of the 1 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a qualified

Gabrielli v. Motorola Mobility LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 14, 2025

“Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must 9 ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 10 (2016) (quoting Warth v. … Section 638.51 1 because the section applies only to telephones, and Gabrielli has not alleged that the device he 2 used to access Motorola’s website qualifies as a telephone.

San Jose Unified School District v. H. T. et.al.

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 7, 2022

Reddy 20 clearly recognized that Parent’s further involvement would be valued, as stated in his email to 21 Parent dated December 11, 2019. AR 272. … This unsupported speculation is insufficient to establish that the 11 ALJ’s decision was in error.