Case law

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

Evanston Insurance Company v. Enterprise Plan B, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 7, 2025

Here, however, Evanston has not explained how 20 § 2750.5—under which a worker’s status as an “employee” turns on whether they have a required 21 license—tracks popular understandings of who qualifies as an “employee … Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 100–101 (1973) (“California cases have established 21 beyond contention that this language of ‘arising out of the use,’ when utilized in a coverage or 22 insuring clause of an insurance policy

Steinle v. United States of America

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2020

“The FTCA, a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, 18 provides that the United States shall be liable ‘in the same manner and to the same extent as a 19 private individual under like circumstances … Such a duty would perhaps most clearly encompass bystanders 16 injured by an accidental discharge of the gun during the auto burglary. Cf.

Khurana

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2026

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing these 12 elements. Lujan v. … In 2 Rodriguez, the district court noted that it was clearly distinguished from Wanger case, which 3 involved a plaintiff who sent her lender a letter with a new mailing address, but the lender still sent 4 the notice

Arbor Home, LLC v. Mayorkas

District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2022

24 F.4th 383, 390–92 (5th Cir. 2022) (approving two-step adjudication of extraordinary ability 22 visa based on Kazarian because “[t]he regulation does not say that meeting the regulatory criteria 23 presumptively qualifies … Plaintiffs instead make general complaints about the second denial,4 saying that 24 USCIS “clearly failed to articulate detailed reasons for ignoring the evidence submitted in 25 response to the NOID,” “use[d] repetitive

Estrada v. O'Malley

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

since the comparison-point decision.33 17 At step four, the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s medical improvement was related to her ability 18 to work because she no longer met or medically equaled her previously qualifying … He gave little weight to his opinion about the plaintiff’s physical limitations, including the 2 opinion that she clearly could not lift anything due to hernias, as unsupported by the medical record 3 and outside his

Lizarraga-Davis v. Transworld Systems Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 2022

Collection Activity Arising from a Consumer Debt 4 Lizarraga-Davis clearly has been the subject of collection activity. … The Court therefore finds that 9 Lizarraga-Davis has established the second element. 10 C.

Albert's Organics, Inc. v. Holzman

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2020

Courts 6 have frequently held that customer-related information qualifies as a trade secret, 7 especially if a plaintiff has spent “considerable time, effort, and resources,” in developing 8 some of that information … The court notes that California law 23 does not clearly state whether all employees (including lower-level employees) owe a fiduciary duty

Baig v. Kijakazi

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

No. 11 (“AR”) at 173.2 Plaintiff listed as 22 impairments chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety. AR 23 at 64–65. … This record does not clearly and convincingly 10 contradict any identified part of Plaintiff’s testimony. See Holohan v.

Loucks v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2020

On June 25, 2020, this Court found that the Regents 7 were an instrumentality of the state and thus were immune from suit in federal court under the 8 Eleventh Amendment. See Docket No. 45. … Instead, 14 Plaintiffs should adhere to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) by clearly delineating each 15 claim. 16 D.

Soelect, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Company

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2024

A prima facie showing is established if the plaintiff 3 produces admissible evidence that, if believed, would be sufficient to establish personal 4 jurisdiction. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. … allowed, offering “‘some evidence’ tending to establish 1 2022 WL 174236, at *15 (N.D.

Alcaraz v. KMF Oakland LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 2020

This means that a party suing for violation of the UCL must “(1) establish a loss or 13 deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) 14 show that that economic … “Once a prima facie case is 12 established . . .

Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

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

Rule 15 701 limits lay opinion testimony to testimony “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) 16 helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) 17 … No. 227-5, Ex. 1, Wasserlauf art., ‘858.) 21 Experts may rely on facts established in the record that are beyond their area of expertise. 22 Rearden LLC v.

49Hopkins, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 2, 2020

$1.63 22 million threshold valuation was then changed by the Planning Department’s Assistant Zoning 23 Administrator to $1,900,000 eight days later (effective December 15, 2017), so that the Property no 24 longer qualified … Due Process (Second Claim) 4 In relevant part, the Fourteenth Amendment commands that “no state shall make or enforce 5 any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2021

App’x at 485. 17 “If the parties intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for all equitable claims, they could 18 have done so” more clearly by including an exception within the “Which Disputes are covered … Indeed, a court’s authority to “issue equitable relief in aid of 2 arbitration” is well established. See Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc. v.

Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou

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

The SAC fails to establish that New Century intended to avail 14 itself of the privilege of doing business in California. … And the SAC clearly indicates that the San Diego Development Center flowed from the 8 joint venture discussions and Framework Contract, not the NDA.

Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.

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

The 25 choice was clearly careless, short-sighted, and irresponsible, but it was not made with the requisite 26 intent to justify sanctions under FRCP 37(e)(2). … I find Wisk has not established prejudice to 9 impose sanctions under FRCP 37(e)(1). 10 3.

Messih v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2021

shall be decided by an arbitrator. 6 The issue of arbitrability is for the court to decide unless the parties’ agreement clearly … A third party need not be named in the contract, but 7 needs to be “more than incidentally benefitted by the contract” to qualify as a third-party 8 beneficiary. Vincent v. BMW of N.

In Re Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation

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

“Generally, unless the settlement is clearly 23 inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with 24 uncertain results.” Ching v. … “[T]he established standard when 3 determining a reasonable hourly rate is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work 4 performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.”

Pitkin v. State Farm General Insurance Company

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

Rule 702 21 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, 22 training or education to testify in the form of an opinion … Plaintiffs estimate a class size of 191,362, see Melzer Report ¶¶ 9-17, which 9 clearly satisfies numerosity.