Case law

Goodin v. City of Glendora

380 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 18, 2019

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "Clearly Established" Law . Having determined that a constitutional right was violated, the court turns next to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Maynard v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

701 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 23, 1988

Because Rule 2.2.1 is clearly based on federal law, Maynard’s Commerce Clause challenge fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. D. … Due Process Clause Maynard’s final challenge to Local Rule 2.2.1 is that the Local Rule denies her substantive due process in that it prevents “substancially [sic] or equally well qualified attorneys from other states from

Collier v. Brown

635 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 20, 2009

The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person … “[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.” Hydrick v.

Seto v. McMahon

862 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 1994

THE ACTIONS OF JUDGE MCMAHON WERE “JUDICIAL ACTS” ENTITLING HIM TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT On the other hand, it is well established that a judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts. Bradley v. … As such, the letter and each of the statements therein constitute an ex parte communication appropriately considered a “judicial act” qualifying Judge McMahon for absolute immunity. In Mireles v.

Yoonessi v. Albany Medical Center

352 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 10, 2005

Furthermore, California’s rules restricting those deemed qualified to serve on the Board further reduces the possibility of politics influencing the Board. … See Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925 (stating that “the Board’s proceedings are clearly adversarial”).

United States v. Pacific Southwest Airlines

358 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, C.D. California · May 8, 1973

The Court went on to say: “It is the state which has created the machinery for establishing the prorate program. … The applicability of the Allstate Insurance Co. decision is qualified in that it turns on the special status of the insurance industry.

Sperl v. Deukmejian

482 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 1980

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court established that prosecutors enjoy the same immunity under § 1983 civil rights actions as in common law suits. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Israel Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp

505 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 2, 2007

Removal and the Ninth Circuit Order On January 6, 2006, asserting that it qualifies as a foreign sovereign within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1603 ), IDB removed the case to … Here, Schnapp’s motion to remand the case to state court turns on the issue of whether IDB qualifies as a foreign sovereign state, and, as such, whether it is immune from suit pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Kuenstler v. Occidental Life Insurance Company

292 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 18, 1968

VI The United States of America has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim. … This section clearly limits the right to judicial review to claims of $1,000 or more.

Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles

270 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on the final ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … If facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the defendant violated a “clearly established” constitutional right, the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity for the underlying constitutional

Plater v. United States

359 F. Supp. 3d 930 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 16, 2018

The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. *936 Scott v. Breeland , 792 F.2d 925 , 927 (9th Cir. 1986). … Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in,

Davies v. Valdes

462 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 1, 2006

The Court Need Not Determine Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims against them. … However, it is unnecessary for the Court to resolve the issue of qualified immunity.

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

620 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 29, 2008

UMG contends that Veoh does not qualify for § 512(c) immunity because of four functions performed by Veoh’s software which are allegedly not “storage” and are not undertaken “at the direction of a user.” … The first is that the “ ‘by reason of the storage’ language is itself broad causal language that is clearly meant to cover more than mere electronic storage lockers.” Opp. at 12-13.

Thomas v. City of Los Angeles

676 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 22, 1987

In order to determine whether the defense of qualified-immunity applies, a court must reach the threshold question of whether or not the official’s action violated clearly established constitutional rights and principles. … Hadaway acted in express contradiction to clearly established principles. In closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Mr.

Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani

33 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 25, 1999

This claim is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 1. … Clearly Hawkins meets the Lujan test for standing.

Los Angeles County Ass'n of Environmental Health Specialists v. Lewin

215 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, C.D. California · May 31, 2002

“Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mir eles v. … Because the claims against Judge Lewin are clearly barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Court does not reach whether Judge Lewin, a state employee, also enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity. IV.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

477 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 18, 1979

In the present action, plaintiff does not even allege that it is a direct purchaser, and it is clearly an indirect purchaser. … The requisite proximate cause was not established by evidence satisfactory to the Court.

Porter Ex Rel. Porter v. Board of Trustees of Manhattan Beach Unified School District

123 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 12, 2000

Individual Defendants further argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, that there is no private right of action under California Education Code section 56000 et seq., and Plaintiffs’ claim under Article I, Section … They assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for suits against them in their individual capacities.

Bourns, Inc. v. KPMG Peat Marwick

876 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 8, 1994

Any matters as to which the accountant takes exception shall be clearly identified, the exception thereto specifically and clearly stated, and, to the extent practicable, the effect of the matters to which the accountant … Justice Scalia’s majority opinion relied in part on the conclusion that ERISA immunized certain behavior that would otherwise have been actionable in order to allow ERISA plans to obtain lower cost services.

Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States

707 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2010

The statute clearly provides for SEC discretion. The mandatory “shall” is modified by the discretionary “as appropriate.” … In the FTCA immunity context, “[i]t is well-established that ‘the burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists.’ ” Gager v.