Case law

City of Oakland v. Holder

901 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2013

of sovereign immunity for the claims, mandating dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. … The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, however, is not unlimited. Id.

Pryor v. City of Clearlake

877 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 6, 2012

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because Ray’s conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional law, he is entitled to qualified immunity as to that act.

Lawrence v. City & County of San Francisco

258 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2017

“Qualified" immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a ... constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Qualified Immunity Having found that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Peters’ handcuffing of Plaintiff violated his constitutional rights, the Court considers whether Peters is entitled to qualified-immunity.

Salfi v. Weinberger

373 F. Supp. 961 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 1974

. § 402 (g), a widow is entitled to mother’s insurance benefits provided she qualifies as a widow under the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 416 (c). … Congress clearly intended to prevent the use of marriage as a device for obtaining Social Security benefits to which persons would not otherwise be entitled.

Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

904 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 22, 2012

Cummings is qualified to testify regarding those subjects. However, plaintiff has failed to establish that Dr. Cummings is qualified to testify about cigarette design. Neither the fact that Dr. … In particular, plaintiff has faded to establish that Dr. Farone is qualified to testify about cigarette design, or about nicotine pharmacology, addiction or cancer causation. Plaintiff appears to be offering Dr.

United States v. Benny

559 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 1983

While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other. … Although the defendant insists that he does not seek “automatic” immunity, such immunity would surely be the logical and inevitable result of his position.

M.H. v. County of Alameda

62 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity Both Hast and Nurse Sancho argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference to medical needs claims. … on the issue of qualified immunity.”).

Stevens v. Rifkin

608 F. Supp. 710 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 17, 1984

But where the prosecutor is acting in an administrative or investigative capacity, he or she is entitled only to a qualified immunity. Id. at 1271, fn. 8 . … These statutory immunities preserve the established common law immunities from malicious prosecution necessary to enable law enforcement and prosecuting authorities to function. Jackson v.

Teasdale v. Marin General Hospital

138 F.R.D. 691 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 1991

(“HCQIA”), Congress gave qualified immunity from suit to officials who conduct peer reviews meeting certain standards specified by HCQIA. 2 Magistrate Judge Wilken correctly concluded that HCQIA does not directly apply to … First, the passage of a statute specifically addressing peer review issues and, indeed, the giving of qualified immunity to peer reviewers, is strong evidence that Congress not only considered the importance of maintaining

Wyle v. Bank Melli of Tehran, Iran

577 F. Supp. 1148 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 15, 1983

The legislative history makes clear what the foreign state must prove to establish immunity: that the challenged action is that of a foreign state in its public, noncommercial capacity. … Whether the demand established jurisdiction over PSO or Iran is more doubtful. PSO’s demand on Bank Mclli’s guarantee was clearly made in Iran.

Minifield v. Butikofer

298 F. Supp. 2d 900 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 2004

Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and based on the qualified immunity of both Defendants. … Because the Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for relief, it does not reach the exhaustion issue or the issue of whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Mendoza

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2022

The defense of qualified 21 immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their 22 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) 12 (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right

Steinle v. City & County of San Francisco

230 F. Supp. 3d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2017

Plaintiffs also contend that, under California law, whether a decision actually qualifies for discretionary immunity is often, and is here, a question of fact inappropriate for resolution on the pleadings. Id. at 8-10. … The Court need not reach this issue in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to identify a qualifying “statute, ordinance, or regulation” establishing the duty they seek to apply.

Inman v. Anderson

294 F. Supp. 3d 907 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2018

ADA Moore further argues that, to the extent Plaintiff's first cause of action is based on ADA Moore's prosecution of Plaintiff without sufficient evidence, it is *916 both insufficiently pled and barred by qualified immunity … immunity.

Steshenko v. Gayrard

70 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Furthermore, “a plaintiff may plead herself out of court” if she “plead[s] facts which establish that [s]he cannot prevail on h[er] ... claim.” Weisbuch v. … The Court finds no statutory support for this overly narrow interpretation and concludes it is contrary to Congress’s clearly stated intent.

Martinez v. Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards

577 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1983

As the foregoing discussion shows, these plaintiffs in their peculiar circumstances had no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which [defendants] would have known” to remain on the premises. … Even if the deputies were found to have violated plaintiffs’ rights by evicting them, therefore, the vague and uncertain nature of those rights under these circumstances makes this an appropriate case for qualified immunity

PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc.

371 F. Supp. 3d 652 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 6, 2019

The phrase "any action" has only one qualifier for the immunity to apply: that the "action" is "taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material … The alleged redirection in this case clearly is an action that enables or makes available the technical means to restrict access to material.

Keane v. McMullen

898 F. Supp. 2d 1157 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 13, 2012

The issue of qualified immunity generally entails a two-step process to determine (1) whether the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and if so, (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time … See Chism, 661 F.3d at 386. 6 b) Clearly Established Defendants do not address the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, which concerns whether Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were clearly established at the time

United States v. Landa

281 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2003

That decision held: Respondents, operating a commercial enterprise selling marijuana to any qualified public purchaser, do not qualify as “ ‘primary caregiver[s]’ ” of each such purchaser under section 11362.5(e) by simply … Rather, its state immunity from state prosecution has been limited to possession and use by qualified patients and their qualified primary care-givers.

Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson

413 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 1976

I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of substantial need and undue hardship to overcome the qualified immunity from discovery for non-mental impression work product … At any rate, Duplan is clearly distinguishable on its facts since the advice of counsel was not injected as an issue in the case.