Case law

MACEACHERN v. City of Manhattan Beach

623 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 8, 2009

The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for considering the issue of qualified immunity. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

N.G. v. Downey Regional Medical Center

140 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 23, 2015

Specifically, § 1395ff(c)(5) grants immunity to qualified independent contractors who conduct reviews of initial determinations of *1043 Medicare benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395ff(c)(l)-1395ff(c)(5). … . § 1395ff, Defendant does not qualify for immunity under this section because it does not claim to be an independent contractor who participates in the Medicare appeal determination process.

Rogan v. City of Los Angeles

668 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 20, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 8 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 … The Court recognizes that summary judgment is particularly appropriate in the area of qualified immunity. Whether the law was clearly established at the time of the events at issue is a question of law. Mitchell v.

Endsley v. Luna

750 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2010

Finally, he asserts that Defendants are not immune under either the doctrine of qualified immunity, because the constitutional rights allegedly abridged had been clearly established since Youngberg , or the doctrine of discretionary … For the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, then, the Eighth Amendment provides the “clearly established” contours of protection against excessive force.

Villegas v. City of Anaheim

998 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 24, 2014

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 2 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Bennallack is also entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the analysis because clearly established law in January 2012‘ would not have put a reasonable officer in his position on notice that using

Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Pirillo

118 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 27, 2000

Government employees performing discretionary functions generally enjoy qualified immunity; this immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, the plaintiffs essentially argue that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because applicable tenets of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence are clearly established, and no reasonable state agent would believe

Donnell G. Haddock v. Luna

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2024

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis in 5150 claim, the “constitutional right to be free from [mental health] detention without probable cause was clearly … established prior to 2002,” citing Maag).

De Contreras v. City of Rialto

894 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2012

immunity (i.e., whether the plaintiffs allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the injury). … Hence, the Court finds that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding a second application of a taser, after a first application that was objectively reasonable, was not then clearly established.

Gant v. County of Los Angeles

765 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 26, 2011

An official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … But rights are not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes at this level of generality. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Walker v. Benter

41 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 1999

The State defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The inquiry for determining whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for a violation of the Fourth Amendment requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District

711 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2010

In the Ninth Circuit, specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Maraziti v. … In sum, Hart, Lue-Sang, and Warren are clearly entitled to qualified immunity in this case. IV.

Puliafico v. County of San Bernardino

42 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 12, 1999

To determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks “whether reasonable officers could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that … could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct.”

Golt v. City of Signal Hill

132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 7, 2001

Summary Adjudication is also appropriate because Defendants possess qualified immunity. … The Ninth Circuit has capsulized the test for qualified immunity from liability by public officials in the following manner: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Roberto Rivas v. County of Orange

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2023

clearly 3 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 4 have known.” … To 6 determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks, in 7 the order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional 8 right; and (2) whether the right was clearly

Busch v. Torres

905 F. Supp. 766 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 1, 1995

Apart from lack of proof, plaintiffs claim of excessive force against defendant Bouffard also fails because defendant Bouffard is protected by qualified immunity. 6 Qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit for damages … Thus, there is no need to continue further with the qualified immunity analysis. See Hallstrom v. Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Killeen v.

Bravo Ex Rel. Ramirez v. Hsu

404 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2005

Public officials such as Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” P.B. v. … If sufficient evidence is presented at summary judgment to make out a constitutional violation, the school officials still are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right they violated was not clearly established

Arya v. Calpers

943 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, C.D. California · May 2, 2013

Based upon his factual allegations, plaintiff here is clearly asserting a disparate treatment claim. … Since there is no constitutional authority for abrogation of state sovereign immunity with respect to negligence and breach of contract claims, this court lacks jurisdiction over any such claims if defendant CalPERS qualifies

Hall v. City of Los Angeles

710 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2010

The qualified immunity analysis entails a two-step inquiry: first, the Court must decide whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional right; second, if so, the Court must decide whether the law was clearly established … The Court agrees that such a right was clearly established at that time.

Gibson v. County of Riverside

181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 4, 2002

Unlike sections 818.2 and 821, which provide an absolute immunity, sections 820.4 and 820.6 provide a qualified immunity available in many circumstances but unavailable where the defendant public employee failed to use due … As the Court's analysis will make clear, sections 51 and 52 of the Unruh Act, when read together, clearly make such conduct actionable even though the individual or entity denying others access to a "business establishment

Armster v. City of Riverside

611 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, C.D. California · May 1, 1985

The test to determine whether a defendant may assert a “good faith” or “qualified immunity” defense is a purely objective one based on whether the conduct complained of violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Whether the official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id.