Case law

Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle America, Inc.

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

For the same reasons, Defendant’s request to incorporate the 21 documents by reference is denied, except as to Exhibits J and H, which are clearly referenced in 22 Plaintiffs’ allegations both by name and by link.7 … including that the GDPR: lacks an 18 “evaluation of contemporary social norms,” Dkt. 23 at 10, provides a “comprehensive policy 19 framework” that clearly

Schwarz v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

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

Factual Background 3 Plaintiff Lisa Schwarz began working as an inside salesperson for YP (the corporation 4 establishing and maintaining Defendant YP Holdings LLC … “Any Occupation,” in turn, was defined as “an occupation [for] which the insured is ‘qualified by education, training or 27 experience,’ and

Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 2021

No 12 other party had established itself as Arrow’s assignee of record. Id. H&Z subsequently filed a 13 notice terminating the garnishment of Norton’s wages. Id. … The notice 18 should clearly advise class members of the deadline for submission of any objections.”

Beatty v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 2019

The purchaser submitted to the lender all information required to determine whether he 7 qualified for a loan modification. Id. at 58. … Beatty has alleged 12 facts sufficient to meet the first factor. 13 The second and third Biakanja factors are also established here.

District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co.

District Court, N.D. California · May 29, 2025

Defendants Kevin Herron (individually and as a qualifying Partner of Herron 9 Painting Co.), Dora Herron (individually and as a general partner of Herron Painting Co.), Herron 10 Painting Co. … L, M. 21 The billing records are itemized by timekeeper and clearly detail the amount of time spent on each 22 billed task by each timekeeper.

Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.

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

Clearly, this was not new 15 information to [X], which already knew of or was deliberately ignorant of [Mr.] Alzabarah’s 16 malign activities.” … Maya, 658 F.3d at 1 bears the burden of establishing these elements[.]”

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Department of Justice

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

At the same 14 time, Congress has exempted some information “under clearly delineated statutory language.” Id. 15 at 152 (citing Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360–61 (1976)). … The burden is on the party asserting the privilege to establish all 13 these elements.

Perez v. Unum Life Insurance Company Of America

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

The district court should exercise its discretion, however, only when circumstances clearly establish 9 that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review … Savita Nallapa: Plaintiff was seen to establish care and denied any 16 specific complaints.

Burger v. Kuimelis

325 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 2004

The seminal California case establishing the tort of another doctrine is Prentice v. … Of the cases holding that section 1021.6 codifies the common law tort of another doctrine, John Hancock describes the reasoning most clearly.

Carr v. Internal Revenue Service

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

The party 19 invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court bears the burden of establishing that the court has 20 jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See id. … arguing in part that Nicozi 24 testified as an expert, exceeded the scope of her disclosure, “had very limited information,” and was “not qualified

In Re Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 2021

First, a plaintiff 17 must establish that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is met: numerosity, commonality, 18 typicality, and adequacy of representation. Id. at 349. … Second, it must establish that at least one of 19 the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met.

Kazda v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 26, 2022

It contends that 18 Kazda cannot show: (1) that she is threatened by a repetition of the injury alleged (denial of her 19 claim under Aetna’s former policy) or (2) that she would qualify for the coverage she now seeks … See id. 18 A closer look at the claims excluded for “questionable” lipedema diagnoses shows that in 19 many, a lipedema diagnosis was clearly mentioned.2 Claim 2C states that “this request is for a 20 suction

Deckard v. Berryhill

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2020

AR 477. 12 “Only physicians and certain other qualified specialists are considered acceptable medical 13 sources.” … The first factor clearly is met, as the ALJ did not 1 and Morando and failing to credit Deckard’s testimony.

Valley Investments-Redwood LLC v. City of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 2023

Plaintiff asserts that these justifications 22 are “clearly pretextual” because there have been no evictions from an Alameda marina “in this 23 century,” nor was there any evidence of a threatened eviction at Barnhill … Second, assuming CEQA is found to apply, 13 the agency must decide whether the activity qualifies for one of the many exemptions that excuse otherwise covered activities from 14

San Francisco Baykeeper v. Air Products & Chemicals Inc.

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

Specifically, the Site Map shall clearly denote: (a) the topography and the direction of stormwater 28 || flow for each drainage area of the Facility, (b) property boundaries, (c) known or suspected drop inlets, 1 … The 3 || agency review period expires forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt by DOJ, evidenced by 4 || correspondence from DOJ establishing the review period.

American Federation of Teachers v. DeVos

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

Indeed, “[a]t the pleading stage, the plaintiff 23 must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” In re Apple Processor Litig., 366 F. Supp. 24 3d 1103, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Spokeo, 136 S. … Once 12 the MOU terminated, the DEO had no way to identify which GE Programs would qualify as 13 “failing” or “in the zone” for a second year under the 2014 GE Rule.

Dominguez v. Saul

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2020

On August 7, 2017, the agency denied 22 Plaintiff’s claim, finding he did not qualify for disability benefits. AR 116-21. … 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).

Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2022

Gore, 49 Cal. 4th 12, 30 (2010)) 1 Babybus does not allege facts that establish each of the four elements. … It appears that Congress carefully balanced the competing interests of copyright holders, ISPs, and the public, 4 by providing immunity subject to relief for any misuse of the statute. 5 Diebold

Hunter v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

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

It does not clearly contemplate class arbitration and does not prohibit the 21 arbitrator from issuing public injunctive relief. … The court held that the regulations enacted by California 6 to operate the exchange, including those that “establishe[d] Covered California’s mandated 7 arbitration disclosure [ ] limit the extent of Section 1363.1’

Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 2021

Cricket employees’ emails expressing concern that 4G posters (that had 4G logos without the 27 “4G capable” qualifier … Predominant questions 19 make up “a significant aspect of the case” and clearly justify “handling the dispute on a 20 representative rather than on an individual basis.”