Case law

Foshee v. City Of Gilroy

District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 2021

The 13 video clearly shows that Mr. Foshee is out of his vehicle and then on the roof of his vehicle, and 14 obviously not making any movements within the vehicle at that time. … Evid. 702 (witness must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 26 training, or education”). Mr.

Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 16, 2023

[I]f liability is 19 established and statutory damages are due to the class members, the Court would necessarily 20 award less than $2,500. … The fee-requesting party must submit billing records to establish the 10 number of hours it requested are reasonable, see Gonzalez v.

Sobaszkiewicz v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2022

Id. 20 Ultimately, the Senne court “reject[ed] Defendants' suggestion that a good faith belief that 21 Plaintiffs are exempt would establish that their violation of Section 226 was not ‘knowing 22 and intentional … The court rejects FedEx’s efforts 3 to turn these narrow holdings into a blanket rule immunizing FedEx from liability 4 stemming from the fundamental issue of employee classification.

Conroy v. Ridge Tool Company

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 2020

As common with state court pleadings, whether Conroy clearly alleged Cal Steam’s 18 citizenship is unclear, though “existing under the laws” presumably … Conroy avers 11 that Ridge equates Cal Steam’s place of incorporation with its principal place of business, and has 12 not established that its principal place of business is Virginia.

Lewis v. Kijakazi

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

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 18 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … See Baker v. 1 established case law, evidence dated after an ALJ’s decision can still be related to the period 2 before the ALJ’s decision.”) (collecting cases). As Dr.

Johnson v. Garlic Farm Truck Center LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 2021

Jurisdiction 27 The Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. … Johnson has established that 11 he has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.

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

Shelter Capital Partners 21 LLC, the Ninth Circuit took a pragmatic and broad view of what this language means, explaining 22 that it is “clearly meant to cover more than mere electronic storage lockers.” 718 F.3d … The Court therefore need not address whether Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing 3 17 direct copyright infringement. 18 IV.

Mahon v. Mainsail LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2020

would 25 otherwise exist, ‘where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify … Visual Data’s records, attached to Mahon’s pleadings, clearly list 18 Maron Pictures as the owner of the copies.17 (Dkt. No. 19-4.)

LD v. United Behavioral Health

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2020

The EOBs 19 clearly state the amounts that United would reimburse and any remaining amounts that the 20 plaintiffs would owe to Summit Estate, and that plaintiffs could appeal such reimbursement 21 determinations … “To qualify as equitable relief, both (1) the basis for the plaintiff’s 12 claim and (2) the nature of the underlying remedies sought must be equitable rather than legal.” 13 Depot, Inc. v.

Thomas v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2024

A severe impairment “must be 14 established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. 15 § 404.1521. … This determination was supported by substantial 7 evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion that Plaintiff’s hernia qualified as a severe 8 impairment. In September 2018, Dr.

Schuman v. Energizer Holding, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2024

They have outlined actions by Energizer and Walmart that are clearly consistent with 24 the alleged agreement. … Ct. 2274, 2283–84 (2018) (cleaned up). 13 “Typically only ‘horizontal’ restraints—restraints imposed by agreement between 14 competitors—qualify as unreasonable per se.” Id.

Portable Power, Inc. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2024

They have outlined actions by Energizer and Walmart that are clearly consistent with 24 the alleged agreement. … Ct. 2274, 2283–84 (2018) (cleaned up). 13 “Typically only ‘horizontal’ restraints—restraints imposed by agreement between 14 competitors—qualify as unreasonable per se.” Id.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 29, 2021

Capella did not act as its own lexicographer 2 because it did not clearly and explicitly define that term in the Reissued Parents. … Nowhere in the Reissued Patents’ specification does Capella clearly state that the term 13 “port” is defined as “fiber collimator port.”

Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · May 31, 2022

Shah’s CW 7 allegations about Precigen’s failure to meet internal timelines and assessments of commercial 8 viability that are not clearly within the expertise of Mr. … Elec. 12 Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 1996); see also In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 13 375 F.Supp.2d 983, 1031 (S.D.

Copeland v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2024

They have outlined actions by Energizer and Walmart that are clearly consistent with 24 the alleged agreement. … Ct. 2274, 2283–84 (2018) (cleaned up). 13 “Typically only ‘horizontal’ restraints—restraints imposed by agreement between 14 competitors—qualify as unreasonable per se.” Id.

Turner v. Microsoft Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2024

For 23 example, text messages qualify as contents. Brodsky, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 127 (citing In re Carrier 24 IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). … Nuance’s challenge fails because this is clearly 8 content, not just “characteristics” of communications.

Brinskele

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 2025

The correspondence therefore does not clearly support Mr. … The TAC does not allege any facts establishing that Mr.

Paniani Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies, LLC

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

Taafua “need not prove that [he] is immune from 4 any possible defense, or that h[is] claim will fail only if every other class member’s claim also 5 fails.” Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. … Taafua’s moving papers do not clearly articulate a basis for awarding fees above the 24 25% benchmark.

Nieto v. Allison

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

Knowledge and acquiescence of a 19 subordinate’s misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; each government official is only 20 responsible for his or her own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. … Whatever happened in the hallway, you better remember it was an accident, or, sabes,”1 clearly urging Plaintiff to drop the sexual assault claim.

Menzel v. Scholastic, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 18, 2019

For example, the print run information does not have to be a trade secret in order to 12 qualify for sealing. … Thus, the statement above from Petrella 11 did not clearly create a damages bar independent of a time bar.