Case law

Camp Richardson Resort, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance

150 F. Supp. 3d 1186 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 9, 2015

intoxicated minor exception is the “sole” exception to' immunity under section 25602); Elizarraras v. … Fair ., Dealing Because Plaintiff has not establish a basis for coverage under the CGL provisions as discussed herein, Plaintiff has also not established a basis to bring a claim for breach of contract and breach of the covenant

(PC) Dao v. Tabor

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

Id. at 9. 3 Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity 4 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 5 damages insofar as their conduct … Immunity 20 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Warden v. Cowan

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity Does Not Defeat Plaintiff’s Claims Against Weaver and Cowan 10 Defendants argue that qualified immunity protects Officers Weaver and Cowan because 11 they believed their lives were at risk when … Government officials are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their 13 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 14 reasonable person would have known.”

Barefield v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

500 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 2007

she applied and was qualified for Position 891, and that she was rejected, but argue that Plaintiff cannot establish the last element of the prima facie case, that the position remained open after she was rejected. … Thus, Barefield has established a prima facie case of retaliation. B.

Puckett v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 9, 2023

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendant Henrikson argues he is entitled to qualified immunity in his capacity as a 11 forensic pathologist. See generally Henrikson Mot. … This court exercises its 26 discretion in addressing the first prong of qualified immunity first. 27 Henrikson has not shown he is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

(PC) McFadden v. Wong

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2025

Alternatively, he argues that he is entitled to 9 qualified immunity. Id. at 20-21. 10 B. … clearly established statutory or 11 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Public Lands for the People, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

733 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2010

R.S. 2477 Roads (Claims VIII and IX) Some of plaintiffs’ claims are clearly predicated on property interests. … Sovereign immunity does not bar the procedural argument at all. 4.

(PC) Rood v. Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2024

Qualified Immunity 4 In the alternative, the Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity in this 5 case. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 unless (1) the 6 official “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of his 7 conduct was ‘clearly established

(PC) Jackson v. Soltanian Zadeh

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 31, 2020

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 18 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 19 person would have known.’” … a statutory or constitutional right; 23 and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.

(PS) Rhee v. Alvarez

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2022

Rhee’s objections and agrees 2 with the Magistrate Judge that: 3  Lavid’s and Helzinger’s alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established law,” 4 so they … are entitled to qualified immunity, see, e.g., District of Columbia v.

Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al.

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

First, Plaintiff’s allegations 6 against Defendant Planty may be barred by qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff is being granted an opportunity to 11 amend, the Court sets forth the following relevant legal standards. 12 Qualified Immunity 13 “[G]overnment

(PC) Healy v. Yasmeen

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity 24 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 25 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ordinarily, once the court 17 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 18 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States

471 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 1979

actions and to establish novel and unprecedented governmental liability.” … But, very clearly, I think, the settled rule is to the contrary.

Perkins v. City of Modesto

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2022

It is a defendants’ burden to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 10 Moreno v. … Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (“Qualified immunity 27 attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 28 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

(PC) Elder v. Joksch

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity 11 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 12 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the plaintiff 10 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 11 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that

(PC) Shanks v. Mendez

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 7, 2022

(Doc. 56.) 20 The assigned magistrate judge found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, 21 “because an inmate’s right to refuse to provide information relating to a prison … , nor could 26 the Court find authority consistent with the Supreme Court’s present standards concerning what 27 constitutes ‘clearly established.’”

(PC) Hisle v. Conanon

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2019

Qualified 22 immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 23 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 24 Harlow … Conanan was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, the 13 Court considers only the second prong of the qualified immunity test: Whether the right was clearly 14 established at the time of the alleged

Wayne McKay v. Yuba County, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity on Plaintiff’s Personal Seizure Claim 14 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim that they 15 unlawfully seized his person. … Qualified immunity precludes civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 for state officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 17 rights of which a reasonable person would

(PC) Taylor v. Carbullido

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2023

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from 14 civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 15 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … a statutory 19 or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the 20 incident.

(PC) Thurston v. Younger

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 26, 2020

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 15 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 16 person would have known.’” … a statutory or constitutional right; 20 and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.