Case law

Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission

250 F. Supp. 3d 616 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2017

Code §§ 441 , 5830(f), (h); see also Time Warner, 2013 WL 12126774 , at *5 (noting that “it is possible to qualify for [the CPUC] fee without being a cable operator”). … For the reasons stated in this Order, the. court finds that plaintiffs have established a valid conversion claim for recovery of their security deposit plus its accrued interest, and defendant has established a right to set

Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission

940 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2013

On the other hand, market testing and/or commercial testing do not qualify as “experimental uses.” … Ramming’s testimony clearly indicates that the experiments were performed to assess how Scarlet Royal would respond to different growing practices after its release: Q.

Rouser v. White

944 F. Supp. 1447 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 1996

Such a result, while possible, clearly would be contrary to Congress’ announced intention of restoring protection of religious freedom. … The Fourteenth Amendment, of course, prohibits the states from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Clark v. County of Tulare

755 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 2010

In Butts , the court denied qualified immunity to officers who had intentionally violated the suspects’ Miranda rights, in accordance with their training and departmental policy. … Immunity In their reply papers, defendants for the first time raise the issue of “immunity.” (Doc. 25, Reply p. 5-9.) Reply papers should be limited to matters raised in the opposition papers.

Mixon v. Wellspace Health

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2025

Thus, Plaintiffs have not established Porteus’s 21 physical address was unknown. … Thus, 28 Defendant does not qualify as a federal officer for the purposes of section 1442. 1 assert a colorable federal defense.” Doe v.

Howard

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2026

Finally, 7 Defendant contends he is entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity defense.

(PC) Kahaku v. Wallace

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2023

Qualified Immunity 2 Legal Standard 3 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct … 4 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

(PC) Carter v. Henry

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 25, 2025

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327.

Castillo

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 10, 2026

Finally, Defendants contend 7 they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity defense.

Biggs v. Wilson

828 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 3, 1991

Clearly this is not what the Act contemplates. … That case held that “[w]hile the FLSA does not expressly set forth a requirement of prompt payment, such a requirement is clearly established by the authorities, and codified in interpretative regulation, 29 C.F.R. 777.2(

Jana Williams v. City of Fresno, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2026

To establish a violation of § 15 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2) she is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services 16 sought; … As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not established 21 that she is disabled.

Vang v. Healy

804 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 15, 1992

This rule asserts that a case “arises” under federal law if the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that a right or immunity created by the Constitution or the laws of the United States is an essential element of the plaintiff … Plaintiffs’ right to relief is clearly based, upon state law.

(PC) Onley v. Davis

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2025

Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332-34 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 Further, it was not clearly established that under these 17 circumstances, such searches violated plaintiff’s Fourth 18 Amendment right … , and thus qualified immunity applies.

Sierra Club v. Eubanks

335 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2004

In order to qualify for the requested injunctive relief, however, Plaintiffs must still make some showing of irreparable injury. … Balance of Hardships The balance of hardships clearly tip in favor of granting a preliminary injunction in this case.

Mekal Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 15, 2025

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 1 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [ ]he is a 2 qualified individual with a disability; (2) [ ]he was excluded from participation … The court has twice 26 advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in his federal housing discrimination claims and it now 27 clearly appears that granting further leave to amend would be futile.

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2024

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … While short, Plaintiff’s 12 complaint does not clearly state what happened.

Rivas v. California Franchise Tax Board

619 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2008

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state or state entity unless that immunity has been specifically abrogated by federal statute. See, e.g., United States v.

Kelso

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2026

Qualified Immunity 17 In the alternative, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity in this 18 case. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 unless (1) the 19 official “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of his 20 conduct was ‘clearly established

(PC) Miller v. Sanchez

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2022

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where, as in this case, the immunity defense is clear on the face of the complaint … Plaintiff has not established he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 7 injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

(PC) Mendoza Garcia v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 2, 2025

Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to 25 serious medical needs. See Wood v. … Defendants bear the burden 6 of establishing that they are entitled to immunity for an actual policy decision made by an 7 employee who “consciously balanc[ed] risks and advantages ....” AE ex rel. Hernandez v.