Case law

Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd.

286 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2003

To qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity, a defendant must establish that it is both an arm of the state and that its right to immunity has neither been waived by the state nor abrogated by Congress. a. … Waiver A defendant that establishes that it is an arm of the state is entitled to sovereign immunity unless one of two exceptions applies.

Xavier v. Tanori

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2022

“If an official could reasonably have 4 believed her actions were legal in light of clearly established law and the information she 5 possessed at the time, she is protected by qualified immunity.” Franklin v. … Sound Mental Health, 632 22 F.3d 1091, 1109 (9th Cir. 2011). 23 Here, the Court finds that Officer Tanori is entitled to qualified immunity because he 24 violated no clearly

Dew v. City of Seaside

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 2021

Defendants argue that Defendant Manuel Fernandez is entitled to 15 qualified immunity. … , and (2) whether such 18 right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Bresaz v. County of Santa Clara

136 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2015

Defendants contend that (1) Bresaz’s ADA claim “fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that [the Decedent] was a qualified individual with a disability,” that (2) Hayes and Marshall “do not have standing” to bring … Furthermore, “‘a plaintiff may plead [himjself out of court’ ” if he “plead[s] facts which establish that he cannot prevail on his...claim.” Weisbuch v.

Bowles v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 2020

Defendants move for 2 qualified immunity, arguing that no constitutional violation occurred under clearly 3 established law. 4 A. … Garner, 471 U.S. at 11–12. 5 Defendants only move for qualified immunity based on the “clearly established” 6 prong of the analysis.

Hampton v. State of California

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2022

They raise two grounds for 19 reconsideration: (1) the court did not hold the plaintiffs to their burden of establishing a clearly 20 established constitutional when it analyzed qualified immunity, and (2) it did not … qualified immunity.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

830 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 30, 1993

plaintiff has been denied access to a business establishment. … In finding immunity, the court commented: “[bjecause of important policy considerations, the rule has become established that government officials are not personally liable for their discretionary acts within the scope of

Guyton v. Phillips

532 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 18, 1981

The First Circuit had held that in addition to showing a deprivation under color of state law, the plaintiff must allege and prove bad faith if the claim was against a person entitled to the qualified immunity or good faith … Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033 , 94 S.Ct. 462 , 38 L.Ed. 324 (1973), offends due process guarantees and qualified immunity privileges of § 1983.

Brazil v. Office of Personnel Management

35 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2014

The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests on the party asserting it. Id. Sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction have a “murky” and “confusing relationship.” Powelson v. … States, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 334, 339 (E.D.Va.1999) (“Congress has clearly manifested an intent to preempt state law regarding the terms and benefits of FEH-BA plans.”).

Solis v. Webb

931 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2012

are qualified, under section 401 of Title 26” of the U.S.Code. … The terms of the Parrot Cellular Employee Stock Ownership Plan clearly fall within this definition. See Howard v.

Bratton v. Broomfield

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity 20 Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law 21 was not clearly established, at the time Defendants denied Plaintiff … Dec. 15, 2020) (denying qualified immunity to prison officials because inmates had “a 18 clearly established constitutional right to protection from a heightened exposure to 19 COVID-19, despite the novelty of the virus

Quadra v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

403 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 1975

grand jury established by the defendants. … Plaintiffs have clearly stated throughout this litigation that they do not attribute any malevolent intention to defendants.

Vaughn

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2026

clearly established statutory or constitutional 9 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right 24 was “clearly established in light of the specific context of the case” at the time of the events in 25 question.

Cook v. United States

545 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 5, 1982

The CDC Data Base Anticipating the possibility of vaccine-linked illnesses when the government initiated the massive swine flue immunization program of 1976, CDC established a surveillance program to collect reports of post-vac-cinal … As the reporting was clearly more complete in the earlier period, this is another sign that the average attack rates computed by Dr. Schonberger were too low.

California Ex Rel. California Regional Water Quality Control Board v. Department of the Navy

371 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 1973

Plaintiff’s exposition of the legislative history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act indicates strongly that federal agencies must comply with applicable water quality standards as established by state and local governments … Whatever name be applied, the element of punishment clearly predominates, and Congress has not given its consent that suits of this character be brought against the United States.

Milliken v. Maylin

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 27, 2019

(defendants entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established 19 law that placement on CSW for six days violated Eighth Amendment). … established law” 2 || prong of the qualified immunity analysis would still dispose of his claim.

Avalos

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 2026

The defense 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 … “[I]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Ballesteros v. Stek

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 2021

Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112, 1123 (9th Cir. 2021). 20 Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “a right is clearly 21 established only if its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable … As a result, it was not “beyond debate” that such actions violated Plaintiff’s Fourth 5 Amendment rights, and these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity based on a lack of 6 “clearly established law.”

The Estate of Demetrius Stanley v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 9, 2022

of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 23 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 24 rights of which a reasonable person … Clearly established right 3 “‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 4 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Cruz v. United States

387 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 2005

FSIA The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., “established a comprehensive framework for determining whether a court in this country ... may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state.” … This proof establishes a presumption that the foreign state is protected by immunity. The plaintiff then has the burden of going forward with the evidence by offering proof that one of the FSIA exemptions applies.