Case law

Garcia v. Orange County's Credit Union (In Re Garcia)

451 B.R. 909 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2011

Has the debtor in this ease, Angie Garcia, established that her vehicle qualifies as a “tool of the trade?” II. … Debtor Must Establish That Her Vehicle Qualifies as a “Tool of the Trade” to Qualify for Lien Avoidance Under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (f) As noted above, 11 U.S.C. § 522 (f)(l)(B)(ii) permits a debtor to avoid *918 a lien if it impairs

Bullock v. Gomez

929 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 1996

Defendants cite a qualified immunity case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court concluded that, “although the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were both in effect at the time of the alleged violations, … it was not then clearly established that either statute applied to state prisons.”

Gartner v. Securities & Exchange Commission

913 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 27, 1995

Under the well-established doctrine of judicial immunity, defendant Real should be dismissed as a defendant. C. … employment regarding the common-law tort claims. 11 Moreover, statements to the press are integral to a proseeutpr’s job, and the Supreme Court has afforded qualified immunity to such statements.

Cagle v. Cooper Companies

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

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

Slaieh v. Simons

584 B.R. 28 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 16, 2018

Trustee, as the proponent of the claim of immunity, bears the burden of establishing that *40 such immunity is justified. Antoine , 508 U.S. at 432 , 113 S.Ct. 2167 . … All four elements required to establish quasi-judicial immunity are satisfied here.

Carol Lemus Herrera et al. v. City of Azusa et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2026

“Defendants 26 are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light 27 most favorable to [the plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional 28 right.” … Clearly Established Right 7 Defendants nevertheless argue they are entitled to summary judgment on grounds 8 of qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law that

Wright v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

385 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 12, 2005

Thus, Plaintiff argues that the information Plaintiff seeks from Crogan is clearly relevant. … Plaintiff issued press releases, held press conferences, and established a website discussing the information of which he now complains. (Order at 6 n. 1.)

Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 2023

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ 6 argument that the Defendant Officers violated a clearly established right to bodily 7 privacy does not address whether the Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified 8 immunity … established right for purposes of qualified 16 immunity here.

EcoDisc Technology AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp.

711 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 22, 2010

Plaintiff clearly alleges that it does not use Defendants’ standards or format, but as to the replicators, the representations are lacking. … DVD Forum’s contacts with the United States are insufficient to qualify as either substantial or continuous and systematic.

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence

542 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 4, 2008

Defendants ODNI and the DOJ acknowledge that the requested information qualifies for expedited processing, but nonetheless, the defendant agencies have failed to process Plaintiffs requests within the statutory time frame … The standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction are well established.

Cynthia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 3, 2025

that constitutional right was clearly established at time of the alleged unlawful action. … Although relevant authorities need not be directly on point to qualify as “clearly establish[ing]” a plaintiff’s rights for the purpose of qualified immunity, none of the cases that Plaintiffs raise here would have put

Jackson v. County of San Bernardino

191 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 13, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when [ ] he makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances [] he confronted.” … Bannes has therefore not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, Bannes’ motion for summary judgment on this claim is DENIED. B.

Miller v. Pancucci

92 Daily Journal DAR 2121 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 21, 1992

“The work product rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. Co. v. … Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that these documents are privileged.

P.P. v. Compton Unified School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 1126 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 29, 2015

In fact, the Ninth Circuit has noted that “[plaintiffs may establish that an organization violated § 504 by showing that the public entity discriminated against, excluded, or denied the benefits of a public program to a qualified … As discussed above, *1145 “[Plaintiffs’] burden here is doubly demanding: Because [Plaintiffs] seek[] a mandatory injunction, [they] must establish that the law and facts clearly favor [their] positidn, not simply that [they

Bryant v. Cortez

536 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 23, 2008

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. *1165 (Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ P & A Memo … Defendants have also raised a qualified immunity defense. Because the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to judgment on other grounds, it need not and does not reach this defense at this time.

Craft v. County of San Bernardino

624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 1, 2008

Barrett, 496 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.2007) (finding no qualified immunity for the policy) — but the Eleventh Circuit has since granted re-hearing en banc. … Barrett, supra, 496 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.2007) (finding no qualified immunity for policies of routinely strip searching pre-arraignment and post-release inmates).

ECash Technologies, Inc. v. Guagliardo

127 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 30, 2000

in any case the mere registration of a domain name does not create “clearly established” rights to a mark. … It is only when another’s rights, not just use, are “clearly established,” that “good faith” is eliminated.

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 1012 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 29, 2014

The time Plaintiffs classified as “§ 1983 only” includes time exclusive to 1) Plaintiff *1020 Rodriguez (who had only a federal claim); 2) Plaintiffs’ Monell claim; 6 3) qualified immunity issues; and 4) issues relating to … The Court finds that Defendants’ Summary Judgment motion focused predominantly on qualified immunity and Plaintiffs’ Monell claim— neither of which are applicable under California law or entwined with Plaintiffs’ § 52.1 claims

Rodriguez Herlindo Junior v. Pelayes

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … App’x 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[D Jefendants were entitled to qualified immunity because prisoners do not have a clearly established right to sleep on a comfortable mattress.”).

Davison Ex Rel. Sims v. Santa Barbara High School District

48 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, C.D. California · May 11, 1998

established. … Indeed, it appears that California courts have established in a variety of contexts that “a governmental immunity is a jurisdictional bar to a claim for money damages against a public entity or employee.” Gates v.