Case law

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2000

Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act. … Moreover, no amount of colorful pleading can obscure the fact that plaintiffs’ challenge is, in fact, to the MSA, the Qualifying Statute and the Model Act, all of which are clearly immunized, as are the actions incidental

Chew v. Gates

744 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), grants qualified immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The question of whether a government official has qualified immunity for an action turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

Gallardo v. DiCarlo

203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

Klock v. Cain

813 F. Supp. 1430 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 17, 1993

At the trial, the court dismissed this claim based on application of the qualified immunity defense. 2 The court ruled that *1431 this constitutional right (assuming its existence) was not “clearly established” at the time … At that point, the court held that, as a matter of law, the qualified immunity defense precluded plaintiff from recovery on his local "deportation” claim. 3 .

Trujillo v. City of Ontario

428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If an officer’s actions are objectively reasonable under the circumstances and in light of the clearly established law, then qualified immunity should be found. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 .

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles

397 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2005

Bravo now moves for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, the doctrine that immunizes law enforcement officers from civil suits where their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established … The Constitutional rights in dispute have been clearly established.

C.N. v. Wolf

410 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 28, 2005

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Hence the Complaint alleges discriminatory treatment regarding a clearly established constitutional right, and Wolf is not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Lay v. Porker

371 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2004

The Constitutional Violation Was Not Clearly Established The second Saucier prong raises the “purely legal” issue of whether the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. Biggs v. … Conclusion As the unlawfulness of Defendant’s conduct was not “clearly established” within the framework of Saucier. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims asserted against him.

Meredith v. Erath

182 F. Supp. 2d 964 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … . *974 In order to establish whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, the Court must consider (1) whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether, given this clearly

Quintana v. Baca

233 F.R.D. 562 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 18, 2005

Affirmative Defense: 2 Baca’s second affirmative defense asserts that Baca is entitled to qualified immunity because (1) there is no constitutional violation, (2) the applicable law was not clearly established, and (3) reasonable … The plaintiff asserts that there can be no qualified immunity because the law was clearly established, and *565 no reasonable officer could have believed the alleged actions were reasonable. (Mot. 5.)

Whitaker v. Garcetti

291 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 17, 2003

(ii) The Defenses The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). … immunity on this claim, since today’s constitutional holding obviously was not “clearly established” at the time of the activity.

Milstein v. Cooley

208 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 12, 2002

Qualified immunity, however, shields § 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified Immunity As Applied To The Defendants In holding that there is a clearly established constitutional due process right not *1122 to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately

Santos v. County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 claims.

BUSHELL-McINTYRE v. Foster

520 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST A claim of qualified immunity requires a two part analysis. … With regard to this second incident, the evidence clearly established that Officer Foster believed that Plaintiff shoved him.

Dean v. Fluty

231 F. Supp. 3d 513 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 2, 2017

Qualified immunity protects police officer defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … Officer Fluty would be entitled to qualified immunity. The Plaintiff argues that Officer Fluty’s alleged misconduct precludes a finding of qualified immunity.

Myers v. Baca

325 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 15, 2004

Qualified immunity is appropriate if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury, do not show that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Clearly Established Nature of the Right 1.

Aguilera v. Baca

394 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2005

Qualified immunity is appropriate if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Finally, because the law governing Defendants’ conduct was not clearly established at the time, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity even if their conduct did violate Plaintiffs’ rights.

Nichols v. Brown

945 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2013

“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 … Kealoha, 869 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1224 (D.Hawai’i 2012) (police chief entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged right to a firearm ownership permit following a harassment conviction was not clearly established); Dorr v.