Case law

Manriquez v. Vangilder

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2020

.; see, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–45 (concluding 26 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly established 27 as unconstitutional because the “consent-once-removed” … immunity because at the time of the incident it 15 was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Constitution.

In Re Abbott Laboratories Norvir Anti-Trust Litigation

442 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 6, 2006

) Plaintiffs cannot establish an anti-trust injury and (4) Defendant’s patents, which it contends cover the boosted market, provide immunity from Plaintiffs’ anti-trust claims. … its patent immunity affirmative defense.

Miranda v. Swift

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 2, 2020

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 20 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 21 and whether such right was clearly established such that it … a hunger strike, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because at 9 the time, reasonable officers in their position would not have been on notice of any clearly 10 established law that disciplining an inmate

G & C Auto Body Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance

552 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2008

Woods also observed that Marin Tug should not be read to establish “some new standard of immunity for contract interference claims.” Id. at 355 n. 10. … “The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant

Cisneros v. Vangilder

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2020

.; see, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–45 (concluding 26 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly established 27 as unconstitutional because the “consent-once-removed” … immunity because at the time of the incident it 15 was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Constitution.

Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.

91 Daily Journal DAR 13926 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 1991

That would be appropriate only if the communications in issue (1) clearly were intended by the rule-makers to receive the full protections of paragraph (b)(3), and (2) did not implicate interests that the rulemakers clearly … Id.; also cf., Al-Rowaishan Establishment v. Beatrice Co., 92 F.R.D. 779 (S.D.N.Y.1982).

Sanders v. San Francisco Public Library

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 2023

their individual capacities because they 12 did not violate a clearly established right. 13 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar 14 … To analyze qualified immunity, a court engages in a two-prong inquiry, asking whether a 20 constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was “clearly established.”

Valtierra v. Housing Authority of City of San Jose

313 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 1970

Plaintiffs’ Privileges and Immunities argument is not reached as this court decides the case on Equal Protection grounds. … Nor does the implementation of this change through popular referendum immunize it. [Citations omitted.]

Kinetic Systems, Inc. v. Federal Financing Bank

895 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 14, 2012

Though defendant FFB is the party who has moved to dismiss this case, Plaintiff is the one who bears the burden of establishing that FFB lacks sovereign immunity and hence that federal jurisdiction is proper, notwithstanding … United States, 663 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.2011) (plaintiff bears burden of establishing waiver of sovereign immunity); Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v.

Godfrey v. Trujillo

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 2025

are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The 21 doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does 22 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 23 would

Century Federal, Inc. v. City of Palo Alto, Cal.

579 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 15, 1984

The second phase of the selection process involves negotiations with one or more of the most qualified applicants. … immunity upon a municipality.

Kipperman v. McCone

422 F. Supp. 860 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 26, 1976

Defendant United States has moved for dismissal from the action, raising the bar of sovereign immunity- It is axiomatic that the United States eo nomine may not be sued unless it has waived sovereign immunity. … Clearly, plaintiff sues the alleged conspirators individually, not the alleged conspiracy as an entity.

Dowling v. Starr

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 8, 2021

I find that qualified immunity 18 protects the officers: the undisputed facts show that the officers violated no clearly established law 19 when they arrested Dowling and that they reasonably believed that a crime ( … It then went on to find that the officers were not entitled 7 to qualified immunity because the caselaw clearly established officers’ duty to ascertain the terms 8 of court orders. Id. at 1068–71.

Best v. Virgil Smith

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 2021

, or (2) the 18 constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … immunity test, 27 there was clearly established precedent that would have made it sufficiently clear to defendant that ] squarely addressed the constitutionality of the use of a chokehold on a non-resisting person

Estate of Dakota Michael Anderson-Turner v. County of Lake, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 16, 2026

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 8 of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 12 plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was 13 clearly established such that it

Mitchell v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 2022

The qualified immunity 20 analysis involves two inquiries. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his 6 conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is 7 appropriate.” Id.

Francis v. McKinney

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2024

For similar reasons, the Dublin Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage. … Deliberately ignoring well-articulated pleas for medical assistance from a pregnant inmate experiencing serious complications is obviously a violation of clearly established law. See Hope v.

Rosenberg Bros. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

295 F. 372 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 26, 1923

” *378 And the Supreme Court sums up its conclusions as follows: •“This examination of the eases in this court establishes clearly this result: That the proposition that when an individual is sued in regard to property which … It is thus apparent that the Supreme Court has given but a reluctant assent to the doctrine of immunity from suit, albeit the principle, in its general form, is well established.

Villanueva-Galvez

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2026

immunity. 22 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from individual liability for 23 civil damages if the officer’s conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. 24 … Villanueva- 18 Galvez has a viable excessive force claim, the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether Officer 19 Anaya “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 20

Huipio v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2023

On the qualified immunity issue, the Court exercises its discretion to first consider 4 whether the constitutional right at issue in this case was clearly established at the time of the 5 incident. … The court recognized that 27 on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine “no particularized case law 1 on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control,”