Case law

Sodipo v. Rosenberg

77 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 12, 2015

See INS v. … See Kazarian v.

tBear v. Forman

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

Xuereb v. … See Delta Airlines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352 23 (1981); Dawson v.

Tijero v. Aaron Bros.

301 F.R.D. 314 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2013

See, e.g., Wright v. … See Harris v.

Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc.

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

It further contends that “the console was mentioned throughout the depositions 16 of both Casandra Brown (Atari’s Director of Licensing) and Fred Chesnais (Atari’s ex-CEO), 17 including by Redbubble’s counsel. … R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins.

Wu

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 19, 2026

A-1 ¶ 1), alleges defendant Ying Wu, Chairman of the Board of Zhongjia 22 Bochuang Information Technology Co., Ltd. … Ltd. v. 5 Sequus Pharms., Inc., 631 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original) 6 (quoting Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2002)).

AGG v. City of Hayward

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 2020

See Scott v. … Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 4 Cal. App. 4th 516, 527 (2009) (internal citation omitted). Defendants assert that Wooley and Clark’s 5 use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Sales v. Johnson

323 F. Supp. 3d 1131 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2017

On March 18, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed Petitioner's appeal of the order of removal, affirmed the IJ's decision, and ordered Petitioner removed. Resp. Ex. A5. … See Santosky v.

Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp.

254 F.R.D. 102 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 10, 2008

In LaRue v. … See Selzer v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 112 F.R.D. 176 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Here, Defendants do not yet owe any duties to future Plan members, so it would be premature to say they have breached those duties.

Doe 1 v. AOL LLC

719 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 23, 2010

*1105 ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. … Keating v.

Martensen v. Koch

942 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 2013

Once at the airport, “[Defendant’s] agents” escorted Plaintiff to a private plane and ordered Plaintiff and Zahn to board the plane. (Id. at ¶ 24.) … Defendant’s reliance on Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine, 428 *997 F.3d 408 (2d Cir.2005) is equally unavailing.

In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.

328 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 2018

A traditional corporate insider would be someone in senior management or a member of the board of directors. … Co. v.

UAB "Planner5D" v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

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

See Ashcroft v. … Id.; see Nova Stylings, 12 Inc. v.

Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross

728 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 1989

Ross later learned of Wigginton’s disclosure to plaintiff and called a meeting between himself, Wiggin-ton and the Bravo board of directors on March 28, 1985. … Whelan Associates v.

Sandys v. Willard

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

Va.). 20 When filing their joint motion, the parties in Gilbert identified a fourth derivative 21 proceeding filed against the Altria’s board members in Virginia state court, captioned 22 Cohen v. … Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 24 Cent.

Mackey v. Bloomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

Usher v. … Apr. 23, 2021) 20 (denying due process claim about unspecified inaccuracies presented to the parole board); 21 Birdwell v. Clarizo, 2019 WL 7865195, at *5 (C.D. Cal.

Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2024

Munguia- 2 Brown v. Equity Residential, 337 F.R.D. 509, 516 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Waiver of fact work product 3 extends to the subject matter of the disclosed work product. See Hernandez v. … See 20 Sanmina, 968 F.3d at 1125; see also Upjohn Co. v.

Table Bluff Band of Indians v. Andrus

532 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 1981

Duncan v. … Klamath and Modoc Tribes, et al. v. United States, 193 Ct.Cl. 670, 697 (1971); see also Choate v.

Kaufman v. CDCR

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2024

Bateman v. … See Thornton v. 16 Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 839–40 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 997 (9th 17 Cir. 2021).

Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis & Rastafari, Inc. v. Gonzales

474 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 2007

Lee v. … Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 605 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 , 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961). A substantial burden must be more than an “inconvenience.” Worldwide Church, 227 F.3d at 1121.

Amparan v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc.

678 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2008

In that respect, the adequacy of TILA disclosures is to be assessed “from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer, not the perspective of a Federal Reserve Board member, federal judge, or English professor.” Smith v. … TILA is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“FRB”) through regulations found in 12 C.F.R. § 226 and through the FRB’s Official Staff Commentary (“Commentary”).