Case law

Cimoli v. Alacer Corp.

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

Motions to strike “should not be granted unless the 3 matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation. . . . … Any further facts 17 regarding Alacer’s contacts with Pennsylvania would run headlong into the well-established 18 principle of California choice of law rules that “the place of the wrong has the predominant

Jackson v. Tesla, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 2025

Jackson argues, however, that this is a difference without distinction because in 21 Maryland, the failure of the automatic braking systems qualifies as one of the “kinds of conditions 22 that, … whether resulting from … By contrast, “[w]hen 16 one of two states related to a case has a legitimate interest in the application of its law and policy 17 and the other has none, there is no real problem; clearly the law of the interested state

Quicklogic Corporation v. Konda Technologies, Inc.

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

Konda qualified as a prospective client within 23 the meaning of Rule 1.18. From the evidence submitted by Dr. Konda, it appears that Mr. Guy consulted with Dr. … Konda establish that he followed-up with QuickLogic over a period of years to see if 25 QuickLogic would buy more patents. When QuickLogic finally agreed to meet with Dr.

Rothfarb v. Hambrecht

649 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 1986

Office conferences, unless clearly identified as relating to an ongoing activity of benefit to the class, are in general recommended to be disallowed or, at most, partially allowed. … John Torkelson is a qualified Chartered Financial Analyst and Senior Security Analyst and President of Princeton Venture Research, Inc.

Tabler v. Panera LLC

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

In the alternative, Plaintiff argues if the FAC has not adequately pleaded 15 reliance on a specific misrepresentation, the FAC has nonetheless satisfied an exception under 16 California law established by In re Tobacco … As a result, this case is clearly 24 distinguishable from Opperman. 25 Indeed, this case is more analogous to Haskins v.

Whitaker v. Aguilar

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

“The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal 18 jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements,” which at the pleadings stage means 19 “clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating each element.” … Following Buckhannon, 8 a litigant must meet two criteria to qualify as a prevailing party: he or she must achieve a “material 9 alteration of the legal relationship of the parties,” and that alteration must be “judicially

Genfit S. A. v. CymaBay Therapeutics

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2022

(See SAC ¶¶ 19, 22-23.) 23 Clinical trials, which “involve the administration of [a] drug candidate to human subjects 24 under the supervision of qualified investigators,” are “a necessary prerequisite before any … Hirschfield, its allegations [were] too vague to plead any such 22 breach, let alone aiding and abetting such breach,” and (3) “the cases on which GENFIT 23 relie[d] to establish CymaBay’s liability based on a failure

Carter v. Kijakazi

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

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) (simplified). … Along the same lines, “an individual’s statements of 9 symptoms alone are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or 10 disability.”

B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.

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

The joint employer doctrine 10 recognizes that “even where business entities are separate, if they share control of the terms or 11 conditions of an individual’s employment, both companies can qualify as employers. … Cal. 2013) (citations 16 omitted). 17 Motions to strike are generally disfavored and “should not be granted unless the matter to 18 be stricken clearly

McTernan v. Berryhill

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 2020

Given the 20 extensive evidence regarding her depression and anxiety, McTernan contends that her mental 21 health issues clearly are not de minimis. … Garbarino’s opinion on McTernan’s physical limitations because, as a psychologist, she was “not qualified to make clinical judgments about the claimant’s physical 26

Mary Ann Bathe v. United States of America

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

These roadways clearly come within the definition of “highway” when a realistic application of the term is made. 13 Kiliz … Given this weight of authority, SGT Wahrer’s “don’t do it” comments qualify for the 7 “excited utterance” hearsay exception. Fed. R.

Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

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

Second, she must establish that at least one 7 of the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met. … A cy pres award must qualify as “the next best distribution” to giving the funds to 1 appropriate cy pres beneficiary,” and there must be a “‘driving nexus between the plaintiff class 2 and the cy pres beneficiaries

Rodriguez v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2021

Conversely, plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish 9 entitlement to relief under the Wiretap Act, § 632 of CIPA, and the UCL. 10 1. … Code § 17204. 5 Thus, “[t]o satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by [§ 17204], a party must . . . (1) 6 establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact . .

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

District Court, N.D. California · May 25, 2021

This is clearly not what is required under section 2316(c)(2) which, by its plain 1 outside sources like publicly available complaints about the goods. … owners/lessees are at odds with the interests of used Class Vehicle owners/lessees. 15 This distinction is therefore irrelevant. 16 Finally, “a class member need not prove that he is immune

Martinez Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 21, 2024

Or, put otherwise, who qualifies as the “immediate custodian” that Petitioner must 23 name? … “It is well established that the 18 Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings,” Reno v.

Maisel v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

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

Under the FAL, a plaintiff must “establish a loss or 12 deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury.” 13 Kwikset Corp., 51 Cal. 4th at 322 (emphasis in original). … SC Johnson also argues the products’ “back labels also clearly state the 4 Products contain water, which all consumers know is neither a plant nor a mineral.”

Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc.

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

“The plaintiff, as the party 4 invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements,” which at the 5 pleadings stage means “‘clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating’ each element.” … The statements do not need to use 3 qualifiers like “all” or “100%” in its representations in order to be misleading. For example, in 4 Janney v.

Sumotext Corp. -v- Zoove, Inc.

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

Hayden’s testimony is insufficient to establish 7 market power. Dr. Aron’s trial testimony illuminated this point very well. … The Court 3 is not qualified to make such a determination.

UAB "Planner5D" v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 24, 2020

I suspect that is what Planner 5D intended to do with its 12 application but I cannot conclude that is what the Copyright Office granted when it issued the 13 registration certificates, which clearly state that the … R. 79-5(b). 18 The motions to file under seal are GRANTED without prejudice to defendants’ argument 19 that the alleged data files do not qualify as trade secret

Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.

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

“The plaintiff, as the party 4 invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements,” which at the 5 pleadings stage means “‘clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating’ each element.” … The statements do not need to use 3 qualifiers like “all” or “100%” in its representations in order to be misleading. For example, in 4 Janney v.