Case law

B&G Foods North America, Inc. v. Embry

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

Embry and EHA contend B&G’s complaint is barred by Noerr-Pennington 23 | immunity. … In other words, B&G must plead facts that establish the defendants knew the 1 cookies do not require Proposition 65 warning labels.

Arroyos v. Moreno

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2019

“Absolute 10 immunity fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly and completely outside the 11 scope of their jurisdiction.” Id.; see also Puentes v. Cty. of San Mateo, No. … If the latter, Plaintiff has not clearly explained which part of his sentence was declared 18 invalid, if any, or clearly stated whether the petition was granted for a reason related to a mistake 19 or fraudulent action

(PS) Conerly v. Yap

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 26, 2021

Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Judicial Immunity 10 Plaintiff purports to bring claims for damages against the Sacramento County Superior 11 Court and Judge Yap. … Kennedy, 541 F.2d 802, 804- 19 05 (9th Cir.1976), plaintiff has not named any state actors who are proper defendants and has not 20 alleged sufficient facts to support a conspiracy claim. 21 “To establish

(PC) Coleman v. Virga

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

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendants Hinrichs, Lynch and Virga also move for summary judgment on the grounds 11 that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 12 In Saucier v. … the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Senator v. Macomber

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 29, 2024

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings 9 which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … By incorporating the attachments, the Court finds Plaintiff 3 is an individual with a qualifying disability for screening purposes.

(PC) Franks v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2020

As a basic 7 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 8 involved. … “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity 13 of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson 14 v.

(PS) Harvey v. Nevada

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 13, 2020

26 California brings a motion to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Similarly, Nevada argues that it is immune from suit under the doctrine of interstate 28 sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment.

(PS) Miner v. USA

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2019

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 of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Shepard

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

If only a portion or portions of the 23 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 24 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 25 … If only a portion or 5 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 6 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 7

(PC) Davis v. Unknown

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 26 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 27 490 U.S. at 327. … However, the decisions of qualified professionals regarding 10 treatment are presumed valid and a professional will only be liable when their decision “is such a 11 substantial departure from accepted professional judgment

Estate of Frank Carson and Georgia DeFilippo v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2022

immunity; (5) Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail as a 23 matter of law; and (6) Evers is entitled to immunity under California Government Code § 821.6. 24 (ECF No. 56.) … Accordingly, Plaintiffs must submit the necessary documents as 1 | an attachment to their next amended complaint to establish their entitlement to proceed with the 2 | survival claims.

Olmos

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, 22 or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for 23 protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before … 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) 4 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins or footer

(PC) Ray v. Hosey

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 11, 2022

Edwards violated Plaintiff’s state 25 and/or federal rights because he failed to extend the laws to Plaintiff, which is contrary to and an 26 unreasonable application of clearly established federal laws. … Plaintiff attempted to explain that the CDCR’s and Welch’s conduct is also 9 contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Epperson v. National Assembly House of Commons United Nations

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 30, 2024

Plaintiff neither lists any discernible 19 factual allegations in the complaint, nor establishes how any defendants’ actions violated 20 Plaintiff’s rights. … Under the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act (“FISA”), a 28 foreign state is “immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States” unless an 1 enumerated exception applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1604.

Ashker

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2025

Designations that are 3 shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to 4 unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary 5 expenses and … This 14 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order 15 that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Strange v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 24, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the 1 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 2 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 3 margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 14 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 15 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Robertson

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

If only 20 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 21 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 22 making appropriate markings … 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) 6 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Amini v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2024

If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 11 clearly 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 20 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 21 making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PS) Dewey v. Regents of University of California

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2020

Accordingly, the request is denied. 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. … Nor has plaintiff established diversity jurisdiction over her state law claims. 7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Bautista v.

(PC) Watts v. Thompson

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 24, 2023

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. … Ct. 900 (2022). 3 Similarly, it has long been established that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damages 4 suits under § 1983 for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 5 criminal