Case law

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.

Corales v. Bennett

488 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2007

Immunity Issues A. Qualified Immunity Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ claims. … However, were the Court required to make such an inquiry, the Court would find that any First Amendment rights that plaintiffs may have had are not clearly established.

Gustavo Rodriguez v. Kirstjen Nielsen

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 1, 2020

App’x 53, 54 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 A litigant must meet two criteria to qualify as a “prevailing party” under the 17 EAJA. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. … Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1163–64 21 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A reasonable litigation position does not establish substantial 22 justification in the face of a clearly unjustified underlying action.”)

Gustavo Rodriguez v. Kirstjen Nielsen

District Court, C.D. California · May 26, 2020

App’x 53, 54 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 A litigant must meet two criteria to qualify as a “prevailing party” under the 17 EAJA. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. … Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1163–64 21 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A reasonable litigation position does not establish substantial 22 justification in the face of a clearly unjustified underlying action.”)

Madruga Ex Rel. Madruga v. County of Riverside

431 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 22, 2005

If so, the next step is to ask whether “the right [that was violated] was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” Id. … This leaves the question of whether violation of that right was clearly established at the time Deputy Smith made his entry into the courtyard.

Austin v. McNamara

731 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 20, 1990

As a matter of law, the Court holds that all five of the individual doctor Defendants, as well as Defendant Cottage Hospital, qualify for immunity from federal antitrust liability pursuant to the provisions of the HCQIA. … Requirements to Qualify for Immunity Under the HCQIA The Defendants can qualify for immunity under the HCQIA if they can demonstrate that: A) the professional review actions complied with the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C.A

Kandel v. Brother International Corp.

683 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 2010

The work product doctrine establishes a qualified immunity, rather than a privilege, and the qualification of the immunity is to be determined upon a showing of necessity or good cause. Admiral Ins. … These factual findings are subject to reversal only if they are clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the magistrate judge’s findings were clearly erroneous.

Berdakin v. Consulado De La Republica De El Salvador

912 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1995

It will be recalled that the Consulate qualifies as a foreign state rather than an agency or instrumentality. See 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (b). … The Court is mindful, though, that the FSIA established a special, stricter regime for service of process in recognition of foreign states' status as independent sovereigns.

Ankhenaten Ra El v. Crain

560 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 4, 2008

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Mindful of higher tribunals’ counsel that “qualified immunity questions should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of a litigation,” see Anderson v. … Government officials are entitled to immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Babb v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n

378 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, C.D. California · May 8, 2019

Plaintiffs again conflate qualified immunity with the good-faith defense and argue that because qualified immunity applies only to individual officials, not government entities, the Union Defendants cannot avail themselves … To establish state-action immunity, "the challenged restraint ... [must] be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy... [and] be actively supervised by the State." N.C.

Dennis v. Thurman

959 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 12, 1997

The qualified immunity test requires three inquiries: 1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; 2) a determination whether the right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its … The defendants, thus, have established their qualified immunity regarding plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims.

JC Ex Rel. RC v. BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL

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.

Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc.

445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 15, 2006

(“qualified immunity exists to protect those officers who reasonably believe that their actions do not violate federal law”). … Accordingly, the Court finds that Chief Scharf is not entitled to qualified immunity- 2.

Dennis v. Thurman

959 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 12, 1997

The qualified immunity test requires three inquiries: 1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; 2) a determination whether the right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its … The defendants, thus, have established their qualified immunity regarding plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims.

NML Capital, Ltd. v. Spaceport Systems International, L.P.

788 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2011

Plaintiff Fails to Meet Its Burden to Establish that an Exception to Sovereign Immunity Applies. a. … This is because "[t]he language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not intended to affect the substantive law determining the liability of a foreign state or instrumentality....”

Shorter v. Baca

101 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 21, 2015

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 … 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

Quinzell Hoofbooker v. Theresa Cisneros

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 5, 2024

This objection cannot overcome the 18 Report’s finding that habeas relief is precluded for this claim because of the absence of 19 clearly established federal law based on the holdings of the United States Supreme Court … Davis, 971 F.3d 939, 951 n.8 (9th Cir. 2020) 21 (“[T]here is no clearly established law that addresses whether the admission of a 22 defendant’s criminal history or prior bad acts would violate due process

Clemente v. United States

568 F. Supp. 1150 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 12, 1983

The test for qualified immunity, as articulated in Harlow v. … If the law is clearly established, the immunity defense should generally fail unless the official claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard.

Carafano v. Metrosplash. Com Inc.

207 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2002

This Court agrees with Defendants that Matchmaker qualifies as an interactive computer service provider. … This Court concludes that the evidence set forth above and on record with this Court clearly establish that Plaintiff is a public figure. b.

Camp v. Pacific Financial Group

956 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 11, 1997

The plaintiffs allege that Hagmaier and Guardian fraudulently portrayed Hagmaier as an experienced ERISA professional qualified to establish, advise and administer ERISA plans. … Most of this pre-Plan fraud relates to Guardian’s deliberate decision to advertise Hagmaier as an ERISA expert even though Guardian managers knew agents like Hagmaier were not qualified to establish and advise ERISA plans