Case law

Aimsley Enterprises Inc. v. Merryman

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

the FAC that their 2 Agreements with AMDP “had an unlawful object” and are “void as an illegal contract” because 3 AMDP’s performance depended upon using the “illegal services” of OPMNY, an entity that was 4 not qualified … The party seeking to avoid enforcement of a forum selection clause bears the 4 burden of establishing any factors that would disfavor it enforcement. Atlantic Marine, 571 U.S. 5 at 67.

In Defense of Animals v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2021

Organizations establish 25 injury-in-fact if they can demonstrate both (1) frustration of its organizational mission and (2) 26 diversion of its resources to combat the particular conduct in question. Smith v. … prior action, which 25 26 6 Sanderson characterizes IDA’s National Advertising Division costs as dispute-resolution expenses that cannot qualify

Hernandez v. Amidron Energy, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 4, 2023

Bluhm”), an individual trained 21 and certified by the State of California as qualified to evaluate and document access issues at 22 … Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted that a “recent 8 confluence of several California-law rules have combined to create a highly unusual systemic 9 impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases that clearly threatens to have

Martinez v. County of Alameda

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

Defendant seeks to exclude the following 12 opinions and corresponding testimony from Plaintiff’s expert Steven Clark: 13 (1) The County’s FBNS form, in PDF format, is not “accessible,” which is clearly … Contrary to 21 Defendant’s characterization of Hill’s written opinion, Hill does not conclude that Vaughan is not 22 qualified to serve as an expert altogether.

Baladad v. Berryhill

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 2020

Lucila concluded that plaintiff did not qualify as disabled for purpose of 23 receiving social security benefits. Id. 184. 24 Lastly, in the records supporting Dr. … Id. 16 Contrary to defendant’s objection,7 SSR 16-3p did not abrogate the long- 17 established Ninth Circuit precedent for evaluating a claimant’s subjective testimony. 18 Jerrett v.

tBear v. Forman

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

That counterclaim is clearly encompassed by 7 the fee-shifting provisions because it seeks to enforce the terms of the notes. … “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award 9 and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.”

Martinez v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 29, 2024

Although Defendant contends that 11 evidence regarding the provision of scribe services by other entities is inadmissible hearsay, it 12 does not establish that this evidence consists of out-of-court statements offered … Contrary to 18 Defendant’s characterization of Hill’s written opinion, Hill does not conclude that Vaughan is not 19 qualified to serve as an expert altogether.

Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2022

The Product is named “Greek Yogurt Vanilla Blended,” displaying what 15 Plaintiff terms the “Vanilla Representations” on its container : (1) the word “Vanilla,” without 16 qualifiers, on the front; (2) images of the … Plaintiff alleges more 15 than “a bare procedural violation” and that the Court’s prior finding that Plaintiff establish 16 standing for injunctive relief still obtains.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 2023

Plan sponsors must provide qualified 6 prescription drug coverage. (Id.) … The California UCL claim is dismissed 3 without leave to amend as it is not assignable as a matter of established California law.

Out West Restaurant Group Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2021

Physical Loss or Damage 7 The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs’ allegations establish loss and/or damage within the 8 Policy’s grant of coverage. … Coverage is 17 defined in the first instance by the insuring clause, and when an occurrence is clearly not included 18 within the coverage afforded by the insuring clause, it need not also be specifically excluded.”

Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC

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

Cal. 2018) (“the typical 4 commercial website readily qualifies for copyright protection.”); Bangkok Broad. & TV Co. v. 5 IPTV Corp., 742 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1110 (C.D. … Downing, 265 F.3d at 1001. 19 For example, the First Amendment does not immunize deceptive advertising.

Norman v. Gerber Products Company

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2023

It is well-established that claims for relief 19 under the FAL and the UCL are limited to restitution and injunctive relief. See, e.g., Korea Supply 20 Co. v. … 14 contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the 15 packaging.”). 16 Further, the Statement does not clearly

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

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

Indeed, BART 13 clearly accepts the premise that its agreement with Gonsolin involves losses to Defendants – as it 14 must in order to obtain recovery from Defendants through this action. … The consent clauses “mean 19 that the insureds cannot unilaterally settle a claim before the establishment of the claim against 20 them and the insurer’s refusal to defend in a lawsuit to establish liability.”

Snow v. Eventbrite, Inc.

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

Although mutual consent is generally a question 9 of fact, whether a certain set of facts is sufficient to establish a contract is a question of law. Id.; 10 Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc., 245 Cal. … Supp 3d (“[T]he text contrasts 7 clearly with the background and is plainly readable.”); Dickey, 2019 WL 9096443, at *7 (“[T]he 8 dark gray and blue font of the Disclosure above the Sign Up button contrasted with the

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

799 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 1992

The “non-literal components” of a computer program, including its user interface, are protectible if, “on the particular facts of each case, the component in question qualifies as an expression of an idea [not] an idea itself … Although Apple contends that the top window need not be the active window, citing the systems in the scénes á faire videotape in which other windows can be active, feature B1 clearly appears to be indispensable to the useful

J.L. v. Commissioner of Social Security, et al.

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

full-time work. 4 Even if there were, the ALJ’s reasoning would not account for plaintiff’s testimony as to the 5 persistent fatigue and drowsiness she has experienced since her cancer treatment, which would 6 clearly … But “[a]n automatic 16 award of benefits in a disability benefits case is a rare and prophylactic exception to the well- 17 established ordinary remand rule.” See Leon v.

Roach v. Saul

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

On May 10, 2016, the agency denied 4 Plaintiff’s claim, finding he did not qualify for disability benefits. AR 79-82. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 5 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted).

MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 4, 2020

establish a unique definition for ‘toolbar.’” … A patent’s prosecution history 6 qualifies as intrinsic evidence and “can often inform the meaning of the claim language by 7 demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited

Carrillo v. Monterey Mechanical Co.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2025

Monterey sought such dismissal clearly its Motion. ECF No. 32-1 at 21–22. … opinion on which this 13 Court previously relied, which unambiguously held a California Labor Code preempted “at step 14 one of the preemption analysis” when it fell within one of the Labor Code’s exemptions for 15 qualifying

Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 2022

“Generally, unless the settlement is clearly 15 inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with 16 uncertain results.” Ching v. … The Court has previously 23 evaluated class counsel’s qualifications and experience and concluded that class counsel is 24 qualified to represent the Class Members’ interests in this action. See Dkt.