Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.45s
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2025
If only 25 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 26 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 27 margins … If 8 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 9 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 10 margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownBolden-Hardge v. Office of the CA State Controller
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2025
Second, “[o]nce an 20 employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof then 21 shifts to the employer under the second part of the framework to 22 ‘establish that it initiated good faith … The 21 Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court precedent upon which it 22 relied, clearly held that the Court cannot second-guess the 23 reasonableness of Plaintiff’s alleged conflict.
Cited 0 timesUnknownChiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
266 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2002
It is a well established rule of claim construction that “an inventor may be his own lexicographer.” Kopykake, 264 F.3d, at 1383 . … Thus, by polypeptides, the specification is clearly referring only . to antibodies.
Cited 2 timesPublishedStampfli v. Susanville Sanitary District
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 16, 2021
The 13 doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials 14 ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does 15 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[d]etermining 19 claims of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage 20 raises special problems for legal decision making.” See Keates 21 v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2025
If only a portion 21 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 3 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 4 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownEstate of Haile Neil v. County of Colusa
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2023
Cal. 2012). 26 “On the other hand, an affirmative defense is legally insufficient only if it clearly lacks merit 27 ‘under any set of facts the defendant might allege.’” Id. (quotation omitted). … For 2 well-established defenses, merely naming them may be sufficient. See Ganley v. Cnty. of San 3 Mateo, No. 06-cv-3923-TEH, 2007 WL 902551, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … The CCHCS is immune from liability for monetary damages because it 1 is a state agency.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2024
Defendants now move for 24 summary judgment and argue that they did not violate plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and, 25 alternatively, are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 36. … However, the non-moving party is not required to establish a material 7 issue of fact conclusively in its favor; it is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to 8 require a jury or judge to resolve the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 28, 2021
Qualified Immunity 8 Defendant also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 9 In Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court set forth a two-pronged test to 10 determine whether qualified immunity exists.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 22, 2025
identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Transp. 12 Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997). 13 To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish 14 intentional discrimination.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Khademi v. Los Rios Community District College
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 24, 2023
SCREENING 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 9 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 10 clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 12, 2025
In prison-conditions 28 cases, the requisite state of mind to establish an Eighth Amendment violation is one of deliberate 1 indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. … Additionally, defendants assert that they are entitled to 19 qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2026
Plaintiff’s Allegations 2 Plaintiff’s complaint is presented on a form for violation of civil rights, but the complaint 3 does not contain factual allegations clearly setting … In this case, the only connection with this judicial district apparent 20 in the complaint is plaintiff’s address, which does not establish proper venue.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2021
. § 1915(g) be vacated and instead the motion be denied 6 because plaintiff has had at least three dismissals that constitute strikes and he has not established 7 he meets the imminent danger exception. … A dismissal for failure to state a claim relying on qualified 15 immunity counts as a strike. Reberger v. Baker, 657 F. App’x 681, 683-84 (9th Cir.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2023
Claims are frivolous where they are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 9 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Examples of immunity that would preclude relief during screening, include, but are not 14 limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Murphy v. Travelers Insurance Co.
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2025
In 16 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 17 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 18 construes those allegations in the … The Complaint also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. 14 Although Plaintiff states the amount in controversy is $8 million, Plaintiff does not 15 establish complete diversity of citizenship.
Cited 0 timesUnknown855 F. Supp. 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 14, 1994
The “relevant question is whether the action or purpose whose ‘reasonableness’ is commanded has been clearly delineated and is susceptible of judicial ascertainment.” Id. … Section 440.240 paraphrases the requirements of § 1396a(a)(10)(B) and thus, unlike § 440.230, clearly derives from the statute. 49 . In Oklahoma Nursing Home Ass’n v.
Cited 65 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 30, 2022
defendants are judges immune 9 from suit. … “Like other forms of 12 immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of 13 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 21, 2026
App’x 701, 703 n.3 18 (9th Cir. 2002). 19 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 20 establish a material … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 9 In the alternative, defendant claims she is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 35-1 10 at 9-10.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 4, 2026
with subject matter jurisdiction;” and (2) “a 11 waiver of sovereign immunity.” … Plaintiff’s argument, however, is based on California state law—and it has been clearly 21 established that federal law controls the procedural aspects of an FTCA claim. Bennett v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna