Case law

Silva v. County of Los Angeles

215 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 6, 2002

(Because the claims against Judge Lewin were clearly barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Court did not reach whether he also enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity.) 1 In the case currently before the Court, … Rather, it seeks only injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 4 “It is now established *1083 that judicial immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief in actions under § 1983.” Mullis v.

Icon Desert Logistics v. City of Blythe

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 18, 2022

“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if they violated [plaintiffs’] [Fourth Amendment] rights, if they reasonably could have believed that their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Abreu v. Ramirez

284 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2003

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY To the extent that Plaintiff sues defendants in their official, as opposed to individual capacities, and to recover money damages, the defendants may be immune from liability pursuant to the Eleventh … In its opinion, the Aronson Court clearly delineated its narrow scope of inquiry: "Well settled law, disputed by no party here, establishes that retrospective application of a shortened limitations period is permissible provided

Laux v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC

295 F. Supp. 3d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 8, 2017

Blais also opined that the leaking breast implants caused Plaintiff to suffer from a variety of injuries, including debilitating biotoxin disease, auto-immune disorders, respiratory disease, and fibromyalgia. ( Id. ¶ 30.) … "The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702...." Colony Holdings, Inc. v.

Gritchen v. Collier

73 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 18, 1999

DISCUSSION Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , creating a cause of action for any party "depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution" by someone acting "under color of any statute . … See Cal.Civ.Code § 47 (establishing privilege encompassing such complaints).

Gunstream v. United States

307 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 29, 1969

The claim of August 24 insofar as it purported to make claim for personal injury to plaintiff was a nullity and can *369 not be used to establish the jurisdiction of the Court in this proceeding. 2. … Congress in enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act was impinging on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Wilcox v. Williams

50 F. Supp. 2d 951 · District Court, C.D. California · May 24, 1999

Number of Payments or Period ( 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(C)(iii)) The list of criteria for a DRO to be considered qualified includes the provision that an order clearly specify the number of payments or period to which such … March 9, 1999) (plan administrator’s failure to follow its written procedures to determine the qualified status of DRO did not affect court’s separate analysis as to whether DRO qualified as QDRO).

Ellison v. Robertson

189 F. Supp. 2d 1051 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 13, 2002

Otherwise, “a service provider loses immunity under the safe-harbor provision of the DMCA because it engages in acts that are specifically required by the DMCA.” Id. at 1094 . … Certain functions such as the provision of e-mail service or Internet connectivity clearly fall under the purview of subsection (a); other functions such as hosting a web site or chatroom fall under the scope of subsection

Mr. Benjamin Woodhouse v. The United States Government

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 22, 2022

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND SANCTIONS There are three other issues for the Court to address at this time. … Second, the Government Defendants—Beck, Wilkison, Harris, and Osinoff—appear to be protected by qualified immunity, which protects government officials when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Nichols v. Brown

859 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 2012

Gun Rights Comm., 98 F.3d at 1128 (“[A] possibility of ... eventual prosecution ... is clearly insufficient to establish a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’ ”). c. … A governor is entitled to absolute immunity for the act of signing a bill into law. See Torres-Rivera v.

Hubbs v. Alamao

360 F. Supp. 2d 1073 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2005

pauperis, this Court is required to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … As the California Supreme Court has noted: No restriction is placed on the time at which a prior qualifying crime must have occurred.

Williams v. Calderon

48 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 25, 1998

Attempted escapes while in custody are clearly relevant. Morgan, 24 F.3d at 51 . … This is clearly a different subject than whether the police beat Colemqn to force him to inculpate petitioner. 8 .

Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

845 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 11, 2012

Granting absolute immunity from such wrongdoing would wholly sacrifice the trustor’s interest in favor of the trustee. … June 16, 2011) (“Removing Defendants might argue that Cal-Western is immune from liability for these actions under Cali *1066 fornia Civil Code section 2924, which immunizes trustees from liability for claims in connection

eCash Technologies, Inc. v. Guagliardo

136 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 29, 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.

Verizon California Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P.

326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 23, 2003

Rather, the qualification means merely “qualifies calls” to “provide qualified calls.” … The term “qualified callers” means the callers qualified in the “testing” step.

Federal Trade Commission v. American Standard Credit Systems, Inc.

874 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 8, 1994

or result in establishing credit for a person. … (c) “Clearly and conspicuously” shall mean: 1.

Angelica R. Untalan v. Warren A. Stanley

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 15, 2020

Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity 27 because they did not violate clearly established law. … Untalan’s Allegations Sufficiently Implicate a Clearly Established Right 26 The Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., 27 whether the contours of the Fourth Amendment rights at

United States v. Sudikoff

36 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 1999

Standard for discoverability under Brady Unfortunately, the standard that evidence must meet to fall within the scope of Brady and require pretrial discoverability has not been clearly stated. … The last category clearly does not apply to the material sought in this matter; but the first two categories may apply.

Enslow v. United States

811 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 25, 1992

Second, the Government was not the decedent’s “statutory employer” and is not immune from suit. II. DISCUSSION A. … The agreement also required that “the protecting agency shall retain responsibility for command of all fire suppression action if a qualified employee of that agency is present at the fire.”

United States v. Savage

231 F. Supp. 3d 542 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 12, 2017

Under such circumstances, the petitioner will be unable to show prejudice only if the government establishes that the record clearly shows that “the district court thought the sentence it chose was appropriate irrespective … the broad limits established by Congress”).