Case law

Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission

473 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 1979

We conclude that the petitioners have not established their right to intervene under rule 24(a)(2). … Hence it would not be a bona fide seniority system immunized under section 703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), as was the system at issue in Teamsters. 1 .

Barrett v. Berry

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

right, and (2) that right was clearly 14 established at the time of the incident. … Berger is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.5 10 IV.

Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

2 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 1998

This was sufficient information to put AC Transit on notice that' Sims’ absence was due to a potentially FMLA-qualifying reason, and thus triggered AC Transit’s duty to inquire further into whether the leave qualified for … The court found that where “an employee claiming the right to leave under the FMLA has not established that a qualifying ‘health care provider’ made an assessment of his or her condition and concluded that proper treatment

Gay v. Shaffer

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

California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 “The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the 26 justification for such immunity.” Antoine, 508 U.S. at 432. … “The presumption is that 27 qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the 1 484 U.S. at 224 (“the Court has recognized a category of ‘qualified’ immunity that avoids 2

Jenkinson v. Chevron Corp.

634 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, N.D. California · May 12, 1986

seeks redress pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. section 1132 (a)(3) (1982), for breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA section 404, 29 U.S.C. section 1104 (1982), and for failure to adhere to the claims procedure established … , or experienced____ (B) After the Member has received twenty-four (24) months of benefits under the Plan, the Member is unable to perform any occupation for which the Member is qualified or may reasonably become qualified

In Re Related Asbestos Cases

543 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, N.D. California · May 5, 1982

Castleman qualifies as an expert under Fed.R.Evid. 702. … The California courts have not yet clearly embraced the sophisticated user doctrine. However, dictum in Fierro v.

Wilson v. Knipp

85 F. Supp. 3d 1165 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 7, 2015

However, neither of those cases established a principle that “clearly extends” to the circumstances of this case. See Moses, 555 F.3d at 754 . … Accordingly, the state courts’ rejection of petitioner’s claim is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. 2.

D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2024

Qualified Immunity 13 The Court next considers County Defendants' argument that Mizel is entitled to 14 qualified immunity. … 15 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for 16 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 17 constitutional rights of

Harris v. Mayeri

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

5 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil 6 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 7 of … right, and (2) whether that right 14 was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Vallabharpurapu v. Burger King Corp.

276 F.R.D. 611 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 14, 2011

504 F.3d 705, 708 (9th Cir.2007), for example, the Ninth Circuit noted about a case that was dismissed following settlement, “[b]ecause there was no final judgment on the merits in the case, [a prior decision regarding qualified … immunity] has no issue preclusion effects here.”

Hofmann v. City & County of San Francisco

870 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 2012

Plaintiffs allege that they were objectively better qualified for the position of Captain, based on the secondary criteria, than the non-whites who were selected. ANALYSIS I. … Id. at 1346 . “ ‘To establish municipal liability under section 1983, it must be shown that the decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.’ ” Coming Up, Inc.

Investment Co. Institute v. Conover

593 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 1984

On their face, §§ 16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act appear clearly to prohibit this activity by national banks. Id. (footnotes omitted). … Defendant banks’ Funds as now established and promoted clearly fall on the investment side of the distinction, especially in light of their exemption from the Comptroller’s own fiduciary regulations, and they therefore run

A.W.S. v. Johnston

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

To qualify for 11 removal under the statute, an officer of the federal courts must raise a colorable federal defense 12 and establish that the suit is “for or relating to any act under color of office.” 28 U.S.C. § … See Jefferson Cnty., 527 U.S. at 431. 15 The Court finds the Government has established it has a colorable defense of sovereign 16 immunity.

Hensley v. Life Magazine, Time, Inc.

336 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 26, 1971

Since plaintiff’s evidentiary record contains nothing to the contrary of these affidavits, there appears to be no genuine dispute about facts which, if true, would in our opinion clearly establish that plaintiffs had become … It is obvious that plaintiffs have misconceived both the effect of Curtis (see our note re that case, supra) and the proper test now clearly established by the Supreme Court in Rosenbloom , i. e., not the Harlan test of mere

G. Fruge Junk Co. v. City of Oakland

637 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 1986

The SWMRRA requires counties to establish solid waste management plans to protect the environment and the health and safety of their citizens. Cal.Gov.Code § 66780. … This statute clearly authorizes exclusive franchises. Tom Hudson & Associates v. City of Chula Vista, 746 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir.1984) (exclusive franchise ordinances immune from antitrust scrutiny under Parker v.

In re Naturalization of Scaccio

131 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 1955

She has established to the satisfaction ■of the Court that she is opposed to any type of service in the armed forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief. … If such were the intent, the language employed clearly does not express it. The broad and plain language of the oath precludes the interpretation urged by petitioner.

Massey Services, Inc. v. Fletcher

348 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1972

There is no question that Massey does not qualify as a “small business concern” under the foregoing criteria. … Clearly, § 8(a) of the Act is designed to benefit “small business concerns” by improving their position in the Government contract marketplace vis-a-vis large or established firms.

Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly

688 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2010

Pursuant to Olmstead and its progeny, this Court established in its prior preliminary injunction order that the loss of one to two days per week of ADHC services is sufficient to establish violation of the integration mandate … The document clearly is relevant to the extent that it pertains to the number of ADHC recipients who are likely to be adversely impacted by the new eligibility requirements.

Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Chatz

591 B.R. 396 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 2018

Application of Judicial Estoppel (i) Clearly Inconsistent . … As to the third element, Judge Efremsky concluded that the Trustee had "clearly and unequivocally" established that he did not know that Continental disputed coverage, focusing particularly on Continental and the Trustee's

Dameron Physicians Medical Group, Inc. v. Shalala

961 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 1997

A QMB is either a person who qualifies for both Medicare and Medicaid (“dual eligi-bles”), or a person who qualifies for Medicare, is below the federal poverty level, but is not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid (“pure … not so poor as to qualify for Medicaid).