Case law

Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2023

Apr. 18, 14 2012) (“[W]hen there is no dispute that at least one defendant qualifies as an employer under Title 15 VII, the integrated enterprise test is wholly inapplicable.”). … “Harm suffered in the forum state is a necessary element in establishing 23 purposeful direction.” Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2017).

Lewis v. Kijakazi

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

While claimants must carry the burden of demonstrating that 4 they qualify for benefits, the law does not leave them entirely to their own devices; consequently, 5 lapses and omissions in pleading or procedure cannot … However, an error of even greater magnitude exists 6 in the ALJ’s failure to fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s clearly manifest 7 deficits in memory and perhaps also her cognitive abilities.

Citcon USA, LLC v. RiverPay, Inc.

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

The UCL “establishes 12 three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or 13 fraudulent.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. … “[I]t is well 23 established that individuals may not recover damages” under the UCL. Korea Supply Co., 24 29 Cal. 4th at 1150.

Martin v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2021

Is the . . . right at issue 10 clearly delineated and plainly applicable under the circumstances of the case? … To 6 establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following: 7 1.

Der-Hacopian v. Darktrace, Inc.

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

First, a plaintiff 9 must establish that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is met: numerosity, commonality, 10 typicality, and adequacy of representation. Id. at 349. … Second, he must establish that at least one 11 of the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met.

Young v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 14, 2022

Staeffler qualified as a “treating” source given the two visits. … Staeffler recommended that Plaintiff “establish a new primary 3 care provider” and noted that she “would benefit from psychotherapy.”

Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2022

24 The Supreme Court took note that there is a 25 rule that half-truths – representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying … And these representations were clearly 3 misleading in context.

NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

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

First, the claim construction section of the report clearly 22 identifies how Dr. Almeroth construes certain claim terms. See Dkt. 255-5 at 17–19. Second, for 23 terms that this Court has not defined, Dr. … It is permissible for him to qualify claim terms with expressions like “at least.” 2 Compare Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 837 F.3d 1268, 1276 n.4 (Fed.

Castrillo

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 10, 2026

Id. 20 However, in cases where “a claimant’s symptom testimony is discredited,” the Ninth 21 Circuit has “established a two-step analysis” that the ALJ must engage in. … 12.06, and 12.15 have three paragraphs, designated A, B, and C; [a claimant’s] mental disorder 10 must satisfy the requirements of both paragraphs A and B, or the requirements of both paragraphs 11 A and C” to qualify

Richter v. Oracle America, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2023

Under California’s anti- 6 SLAPP statute, a cause of action is subject to a special motion to strike unless a court decides the 7 plaintiff in the underlying action “has established that there is a probability that [ … The court thus stated that “granting of a TRO does not reflect on the merits of the 17 underlying dispute, and does not qualify the enjoining party to ‘prevailing party’ status.”

Nickerson v. Roe

260 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2003

The Bennett court, however, remanded for a determination whether the timeliness bar was sufficiently “well-established and consistently applied” at the time the default occurred to qualify as an adequate state procedural … Under this standard, a petition for habeas corpus should not be granted unless the state court decision on the merits was “contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” or was “based

Cromwell v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 2019

internal review procedure required by the statute. 12 Id. at 1095; see also id. at 1094 (stating that “[a] full trial de novo in any ERISA dispute where 13 there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the individual qualified … Circuit “held . . . that the district court had discretion to allow evidence 27 that was not before the plan administrator ‘only when circumstances clearly

Walker v. Kijakazi

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

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 21 severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). … In this circuit, courts distinguish 11 among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians who have an established 12 relationship with the claimant; (2) examining physicians who see the claimant

Rodriguez v. Google LLC

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

Plaintiffs argue that at least 15 five injuries establish “damage or loss” under CDAFA. 16 a. … Certain harms “readily qualify as concrete injuries under 6 Article III. The most obvious are traditional tangible harms, such as physical harms and monetary 7 harms.” Id. at 425.

Boteo v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2022

This 8 reasoning is flawed in that the ALJ is, in fact, quibbling with Plaintiff’s doctors’ approach to 9 treatment without being qualified to do so. See e.g., Banks v. Barnhart, 434 F. … Second, the record established that upon losing his employment due to his inability to 14 continue working, Plaintiff became homeless to where he was forced to live in a friend’s 15 automobile – rendering his ability

City of Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corporation

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 22, 2024

“Facts showing mere recklessness or a motive 16 to commit fraud and opportunity to do so provide some reasonable inference of intent, but are not 17 sufficient to establish a strong inference of deliberate recklessness … To the extent that this is their basis for their theory of liability, they must clearly 25 identify why Statement 5 contradicted the defendants’ knowledge or the state affairs at that time. 26 See Khoja, 899 F.3d at

In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2022

To succeed, the plaintiff “must establish that the 19 law and facts clearly favor” his or her position, not simply that the plaintiff “is likely to succeed.” 20 Id. … “Because intangible injuries generally lack an adequate legal 6 remedy, ‘intangible injuries [may] qualify as irreparable harm.’” Id.

Doe v. Becerra

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 2023

Or, put otherwise, who qualifies as the “immediate custodian” that Mr. … “It is well established that the 9 Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings,” Reno v.

Tawfik v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 2021

Thus, it appears that Plaintiff's 5 counsel is “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the class action litigation.” … The Revised Notices 3 clearly provide an estimate for each individual’s potential minimum amount of recovery on the 4 first page.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation

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

Defendants argue that the complaint as written includes no allegations or claims against 15 BMS, and that the California court clearly lacks personal jurisdiction as to the New York 16 subsidiary’s claims. … Defendants Have Not Established Complete Diversity of Citizenship 4 To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a removing defendant must 5 show that there is complete diversity of the parties—i.e