Case law

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.

Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts

846 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 16, 1994

Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir.1986), the court *887 held that an act of conspiracy by a judge, while clearly improper, did not pierce the judge’s immunity because the judge’s ultimate act of adjudicating claims was clearly … It is, however, established that judicial immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief in actions against state judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Pulliam v.

Trevino v. Gates

888 F. Supp. 1509 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 15, 1995

A few legal issues, such as questions of collateral estoppel and qualified and absolute immunity, were more complex. … The Court excluded hours spent on litigating issues such as absolute and qualified immunity and related discoveiy disputes. 18 .

Thomas v. Baca

514 F. Supp. 2d 1201 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2007

The Court grants summary adjudication to Defendant on the question of qualified immunity. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. … Qualified immunity protects from civil liability government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Lonberg v. City of Riverside

300 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 2004

from claims for damages and because Plaintiff cannot establish intentional conduct in violation of Section 54.3. … Courts addressing this issue have concluded that proof of discriminatory intent need not be proven to establish a violation of Section 54.3. See Donald v.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

248 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 6, 2002

Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is therefore granted to the counter-defendant on all of the counter-claimants remaining claims. IV. … Rigby is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for her failure to investigate the propriety of Andrew's placement. (Order 10/15/01 at 19-30.)

Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

563 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 29, 1983

On the instant motion, the parties agree that there are no disputes as to any material fact on the issue of Sherman Act immunity. … Direct regulation by the City satisfies the “active supervision” requirement established for antitrust immunity. See New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Orrin W.

Wiener v. Dannon Co.

255 F.R.D. 658 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 30, 2009

Regardless of whether every class member was exposed to Dannon’s television, print, and internet advertisements, the record clearly establishes that Dannon’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the clinically proven health … The record clearly establishes that the characteristic that distinguishes the Products from others on the market is their respective alleged health benefit. (See, e.g., Pl’s Mot. 2-11; Def.’s Opp’n 2-3; First Am.

New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.

745 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 7, 1990

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment based on the allegation that defendants have clearly infringed on plaintiffs’ intangible property rights and are not protected by the First Amendment. … Because the Court concludes that the First Amendment provides immunity to defendants, the Court need not address whether the New Kids have established, as a matter of law, defendants’ liability for infringement or misappropriation

Lamerand v. Lamerand

499 F. Supp. 1109 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 28, 1980

It is well set-tied that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States except where it clearly and explicitly consents to be sued. United States v. … has not been adjudicated and the obligations of the parties are not established.

United States v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

748 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 16, 1990

Train, 426 U.S. 167 , 96 S.Ct. 2006 , 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976), the Court concludes that the language of section 118 clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity, thereby obligating federal facilities to pay the contested … Based on the language of section 118, the Court concludes that the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity.

Woods v. Adams

631 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

established.’” … Stated another way, when a Supreme Court decision does not “squarely address” an issue in a case or establish a legal principle that “clearly extends” to a new context, it cannot be said that there is “clearly established

Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles, Officer Soriano, Officer Munoz, and Doe Officers 1 to 10

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2026

Defendants are “only entitled to 21 qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], they violated 22 no clearly established constitutional right.” Torres v. … A clearly established right cannot merely be 7 implied by precedent, and plaintiffs may not defeat qualified immunity by describing violations of 8 clearly established general or abstract rights outside “an obvious

In re Wudrick

305 F. Supp. 1123 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 27, 1969

Joseph’s Children Employees Federal Credit Union was an institution qualified under Section 15406 of the Financial Code or that the bankrupt was qualified to become a member thereof or that the bankrupt’s deposit therein … Fazio, 256 F.2d 903 at 908 , that a district court must accept the findings of a referee in bankruptcy unless such findings are clearly erroneous.

Timlin v. Myers

980 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 21, 1997

Retaining Qualified State Employees. … judges and qualified state and local government employees.

O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc.

216 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 8, 2003

The work product doctrine establishes a qualified immunity, rather than a privilege, and the qualification of the immunity is to be determined upon a showing of necessity or good cause. Admiral Ins. … A protective order should be granted when the moving party establishes “good cause” for the order and “justice requires [a protective order] to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

In Re Loughran

276 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 1967

In Counselman , the Court held an 1868 immunity statute invalid because it did not afford absolute immunity against future prosecution. … But let me qualify that. A verbal statement alone would not be qualified as a gesture. A gesture would be an act that follows the verbal statement that is presumably intended to produce suicide.

Paulette Smith v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 24, 2024

immunity as a matter of law” because a jury could find that Agdeppa’s use of deadly force violated clearly established law. … Again, the Ninth Circuit’s holding was limited to the question of whether Agdeppa violated a clearly established right for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Erlich v. Glasner

274 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 10, 1967

Through inadvertence, the court overlooked striking from the order of dismissal the words, “ * * * having considered all of the written documents filed herein * * although it had been clearly indicated that the court had … much uncertainty as to the extent to which immunity for subordinate executive officials applies, if it applies at all.”

Leonides Enriquez v. City of Long Beach

District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2025

Clearly Established Right 17 Defendants next argue that Officers Mays and Lizardo are entitled to qualified 18 immunity because Enriquez cannot identify a case clearly establishing that … at 244–45 17 (finding defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of 18 the officer’s conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 19 D.