Case law

(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.

Mencias

District 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.)

Wallace

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 20, 2026

A 18 Supreme Court precedent is not clearly established law under section 2254(d)(1) unless the Court 19 “squarely addresses the issue” in the case before the state court. Wright v. … a legal principle that ‘clearly extend[s]’ to a new context to the extent required by the 6 Supreme Court ... it cannot be said, under AEDPA, there is ‘clearly established’ Supreme Court 7 precedent addressing the issue

(PS) Shao v. Roberts

District 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).

Niederreuther v. City of Atwater

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2020

If only a 7 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 8 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 … If only a portion or 18 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 19 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 20

Thompson v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2023

Defendant 22 first argues that, although Defendant has waived sovereign 23 immunity for certain tort claims under the FTCA, it has not 24 waived immunity for criminal claims; Plaintiff’s second … Plaintiff has provided no 9 persuasive or controlling authority that would permit this Court 10 to qualify either claim as a tort and exercise jurisdiction over 11 them in accordance with the FTCA.

Rosendin Electric, Inc. v. American Wire Group, LLC; Polycab India, Ltd.; and Does 1-25, inclusive

District Court, E.D. California · May 19, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 25 | Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 26 | appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or 9 | portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 10 | clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 11 | margins

Calvin Rush and Jayme Rush v. City of Vallejo, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2026

If only 3 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 4 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 5 margins). … If 14 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 15 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 16 margins

Mkrtchyan v. Sacramento County

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

If 17 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 18 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 3 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 4 making appropriate markings in the margins) and must

(PS) Singh v. CDCR

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

Though the Court cannot make a determination 17 whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status based on his current IFP 18 application, the Court will recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because … The Complaint 10 also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff is seeking $1,000,000 in 11 compensatory and punitive damages, Plaintiff does not establish complete diversity of 12 citizenship.

Barbosa

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2026

If only a portion 22 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 23 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 5 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 6 appropriate markings in the margins).

United States v. Salyer

814 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2011

O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir.1998) (“it was clearly established in 1981 that, in the absence of an accepted practice or regulation to the contrary, government employees such as Dr. … Salyer does not explain his failure to do so, but the court notes that his ability to make a protected (or immunized) statement in support of his Fourth Amendment challenge is protected by Simmons v.

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. A.M.P.M. Mini Mart

District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2023

SCREENING 26 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 27 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 13 clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Esparza v. Burlington Insurance

866 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 2011

The contractual liability amendment is clearly marked and clearly references “insured contract.” … Esparza’s liability arising out of his activities as an Esparza Enterprises’ owner to qualify Mr. Esparza as an insured.

Gieser v. Moderna Corp.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2024

Randolph, No. 2:22-cv-01714-DJC-CKD, 2023 WL 21 4678991, at *6 (“the United States Code clearly states that ‘[t]he contents of the Federal Register shall 22 be judicially noticed…’”) (quoting 44 U.S.C. § 1507)); United … The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over 6 the action. See Assoc. of Med. Colls. v.

Zambrano

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2025

If only a portion 22 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 23 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 24 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 4 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 5 appropriate markings in the margins).

Estate of Tyler S. Rushing v. AG Private Protection, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 22, 2020

, and that claim is also barred by 19 the doctrine of qualified immunity; (3) the third cause of action fails as duplicative of the 20 second claim and because Plaintiffs have not alleged that their expressive association … immunity defenses.

Hamilton v. Madera County

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2021

immunity. … immunity, and it is premature to determine 19 qualified immunity in any event. 20 For their due process claim, they argue that Defendants did not argue that Plaintiffs failed

(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2022

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 28 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 1 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The factual allegations in the TAC do not show that plaintiff is a “qualified individual 20 with a disability” under the ADA. (ECF No. 21 at 11-12.)

(PS) Garcia v. CA Dept. of Public Health

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 2021

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that 2 California waived its immunity. See Romero v. California Dept. of Transp., No. CV 08-8047 3 PSG (FFMx), 2009 WL 650629, at *3 (C.D. … Mar. 12, 2009) (“as no statute clearly conditions 4 Caltrans’ receipt of these federal funds on its consent to waive its Eleventh Amendment 5 immunity, the Court finds that Caltrans has not waived its sovereign immunity