Case law

Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 23, 2024

violated a 8 clearly established law given the undisputed facts, while we do not have jurisdiction 9 over an interlocutory appeal that focuses on whether there is a genuine dispute about 10 the underlying facts. … If the defendant’s appeal raises purely 16 legal questions, however, such as whether his alleged conduct violated clearly established law, we may review those issues. 17

U.S. Equal Emp. Opp. Comm'n v. Newport Mesa Unif. Sch. Dist.

893 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 18, 1995

The current version 4 of the regulation shows more clearly that it applies only to employers who justify their actions by generalizations about older workers: A differentiation based on the average cost of employing older … The issue is what the employer must show to establish the justification.

United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.

788 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 31, 1992

The Court need not decide this question, however, as it appears clearly from the allegations of the counterclaims that the Defendants may be able to prove facts which would establish that the United States and the Defendants … . *1494 (b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses

Gregorian v. Izvestia

658 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 5, 1987

contemplate the essential nature, not the purpose, of the activity in determining whether an activity is commercial or public. 5 If the activity is a type that a private person would normally engage in for profit, it is generally clearly … Indeed, the legislative history also states quite clearly: The bill is not intended to affect the substantive law of liability.

United States Ex Rel. Satalich v. City of Los Angeles

160 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2001

Because these other Defendants are not cloaked with the municipal immunity enjoyed by the City, Plaintiffs efforts to bring the subcontractor’s allegedly fraudulent conduct to the attention of City officials clearly constitute … Contrary to the City’s argument, the pleadings do not clearly indicate if and when Plaintiffs employment with the City ended.

Meek v. County of Riverside

982 F. Supp. 1410 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 2, 1997

Id. at 229, 108 S.Ct. at 545. *1416 Federal court decisions subsequent to Forrester confirm the general rule that a judge’s act in terminating an employee is administrative, rather than judicial, entitling the judge to qualified … immunity at best.

Gestuvo v. District Director of United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

337 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 23, 1971

Relying on that determination, petitioner remained in the United States and established a life for himself here. … Congress has attempted to do so by establishing large, bureaucratic agencies to administer national policies.

Valentini v. Shinseki

860 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2012

It is well established that the second sentence of § 702, which Congress added in 1976, was intended to waive sovereign immunity. See Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. … To establish a violation of section 504, a plaintiff must show: “(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) he was denied the benefits of the program solely by reason

Jeffries v. Block

940 F. Supp. 1509 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 1996

Defendant Block also contends that, in any event, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no clearly established law. (Brief, 7:15-17). … Because plaintiff has not shown a violation of the Eighth Amendment, it is not necessary for the Court to consider defendant Block’s invocation of qualified immunity.

United States v. City of Torrance

163 F.R.D. 590 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 25, 1995

The doctrine establishes a qualified *593 immunity, rather than a privilege, and the qualification of the immunity is to be determined upon a showing of necessity or good cause. Id.; Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. … The party claiming work product immunity has the burden of proving the applicability of the doctrine. See e.g., Nutmeg Ins. Co. v. Atwell, Vogel & Sterling, 120 F.R.D. 504 (W.D.La.1988).

In Re Silicone Gel Breast Impl. Prod. Liab. Lit.

318 F. Supp. 2d 879 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 22, 2004

as established by animal studies and biophysical data." … immune system.

Palm Springs Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Desert Hospital

628 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 1986

function governmental unit established by State law in one or more States.” … Under this theory, the 1984 Act would immunize local governments only when their actions are within their lawful authority granted by the state and pursuant to a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” state policy

Security Pacific National Bank v. Government & State of Iran

513 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 30, 1981

Just as clearly, certain international agreements may only be made as treaties. … Plaintiffs argue that these attachments are clearly domestic.

Barberic v. City of Hawthorne

669 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 10, 1987

In defense, Stonebraker contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

Intercontinental Dictionary Series v. De Gruyter

822 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, C.D. California · May 14, 1993

” for purposes of 11th Amendment immunity. … In order to qualify as an “agency or instrumentality” under the statutory definition contained in the FSIA, an entity must first constitute a separate legal «person.

Schackman v. Arnebergh

258 F. Supp. 983 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 1966

Parker provide petitioner with a Board of Review to pass on the obscenity or non-obscenity of films displayed by petitioner in his business establishment. … Pitchess provide petitioner with a Board of Review to pass on the obscenity or non-obscenity of films displayed by him in his business establishment.

Altmann v. Republic of Austria

142 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2001

Burden of Proof Under FSIA If a plaintiffs allegations and un-controverted evidence establish that an FSIA exception to immunity applies, the party claiming immunity bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence … The Slade court also had the same concerns as the Jackson court regarding interfering with the foreign sovereign’s established expectations of absolute immunity. Id. at 357.

Wilson v. City of Fountain Valley

372 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 23, 2004

Humphrey, supra, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity A state actor, such ás a law enforcement officer, is entitled to qualified immunity in an action filed under § 1983 if his or her conduct during a criminal investigation either does not violate a federal

US EX REL. DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME v. Montrose

788 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 31, 1992

The Court need not decide this question, however, as it appears clearly from the allegations of the counterclaims that the Defendants may be able to prove facts which would establish that the United States and the Defendants … . *1494 (b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses

Transphase Systems, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.

839 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 7, 1993

California Has a “Clearly. … The reported decisions of the CPUC and the relevant sections of the California Utilities Code clearly establish that all of these allegations are false and unsupportable as a matter of law.