Case law

Morgan Equipment Co. v. Novokrivorogsky State Ore Mining & Processing Enterprise

57 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 1998

The party seeking immunity bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie showing that it qualifies as a foreign state under the FSIA. Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302, 305 (9th Cir.1997); Gates v. … Title 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a) establishes a number of exceptions to the general rule under the FSIA that a foreign state is immune to the jurisdiction of United States courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(l)-(6).

De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2025

Mr. de Tagle does not address this 12 argument in his opposition. 13 “‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly 14 established … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is 26 a matter of law to be decided by the Court, once factual issues are resolved. Reese v.

United States v. Dollar

100 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 1951

principle must justify itself pretty clearly to be successfully maintained.” … The sovereign thus yields its immunity upon the same rationale as if it formally intervened.

Prasad

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 2026

13 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly 14 established right for pretrial detainees to receive ingredient labels for foods served them where 15 there is no … or constitutional 2 || violation, ‘there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity’ thereby 3 ending the need to inquire into whether the right was clearly established.”

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.

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.

Powelson v. Sausalito Police Department

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2023

Powelson physically interjected himself, there was probable cause for the 21 police to arrest him for obstruction, and this necessarily means there is qualified immunity (i.e., no 22 clearly established violation of … Powelson was 13 arrested for inciting a riot and illegal camping (as opposed to obstruction), qualified 14 immunity has not been established.

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

Barich v. Cotati

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

Qualified Immunity 23 The Court does not reach the merits of the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The 24 Court notes, however, that qualified immunity is not ordinarily available when the plaintiffs allege 25 a claim which requires intentional discrimination which, if proven, would clearly constitute a 26 constitutional

Friedman v. Jenkins

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 4, 2024

18 Whether a public employee “enjoyed a clearly established right to speak” depends on 19 “whether the outcome of the Pickering balancing test so clearly favored [the plaintiff] that it 20 would have been patently … qualified immunity.

Gerrard v. United States Office of Education

656 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 1987

Plaintiff’s claim for return of a portion of the taxes she paid to the government clearly falls within the latter jurisdictional grant. 2 B. … Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 764 F.2d 322, 328 (5th Cir.1985). 4 Plaintiff makes two additional arguments which are clearly without merit.

Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation And Parks District

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 The Supreme Court established that “[q]ualified immunity attaches when an official’s 3 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified “immunity 5 protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id.

Martinez

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2026

Id. ¶ 102. 26 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil 27 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 4 plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was 5 clearly established such that it would

Gonzalez

District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 17-1 at 22.) … 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

Doe v. White

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2020

immunity was appropriate because 6 the law was not “clearly established.” … established, see Hunger, 2014 WL 12599630, at *13,10 and several cases granting 5 qualified immunity on the ground that the right was not clearly established.

Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School District

843 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 25, 1994

The school district is clearly a state agency. In Belanger v. … The circuits which have considered whether this amendment abrogates immunity for suits under section 1983 have clearly found'to the contrary. As stated in Kaimowitz v.

Johnson v. City of Pleasanton

781 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 1991

The fact that the federal interest enunciated is an “exception” rather than statutorily phrased as a benefit will not defeat its establishing a right or “immunity” under section 1983. See, e.g., Playboy Enters., Inc. v. … effectively absolute grant of a right of access to all unencrypted or unmarketed programming under a federal statute establishes that local limitation is not only contemplated but is also clearly permissible.

Powelson v. Havel

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 2025

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from 19 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 20 constitutional rights of which … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine 22 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such 23 right was clearly established such that

Buritica v. United States

8 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 1998

immunity. … The court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to support the verdicts and that none of the four Customs inspectors was entitled to qualified immunity.

Liles v. Flemming

176 F. Supp. 303 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 1959

. § 405(g)), which determined that petitioner had not established a “disability” and so did not qualify for a so-called wage freeze in the computation of his social security benefits (Title 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 416 (i) (1) (A) … that petitioner failed to qualify under the first of the tests established in the statute for a finding of disability.