Case law

Rhodes v. Ford

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 26, 2023

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 11 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 12 and whether such a right was clearly established such that it … Ct. at 552 (officer entitled to 7 qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law prohibiting a reasonable 8 officer who arrives late to an ongoing police action from assuming that officers already

Tamara v. El Camino Hospital

964 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 2, 2013

WHYTE, United States District Judge Abigayil Tamara is a qualified disabled person who uses a service dog for independence and mobility. … El Camino Hospital is a medical facility maintained and operated as a business establishment open to the public.

Evans

District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2026

Defendant is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 19 Lastly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … A 20 court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged 21 the deprivation of an actual legal right and whether the right was clearly established such that it 22 would

Cameranesi v. U.S. Department of Defense

941 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2013

To qualify, the statute must either (A)(i) require!] that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establish!] … Nor has DOD established that disclosure will cause a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of personal privacy. Establishing a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy requires an individualized, or at least a uniform, showing.

Oliver v. Madsen

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2024

No. 43 at 2. 2 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 3 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4 constitutional … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 10 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 11 and whether such right was clearly established such that it

Swonke v. Sprint Inc.

327 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 26, 2004

Focusing only on the pancreatitis, plaintiff clearly was otherwise qualified, as he worked at Sprint for years, with accommodation, and received positive performance reviews. … Crown Cork & Seal Co., 1997 *1134 WL 231110, *6 (N.D.Cal.1997) (“given the medical evidence presented, plaintiffs subjective opinion concerning his ability to work is facially insufficient to establish that he was qualified

McGee v. The City of Hercules

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2025

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government 16 officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 17 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A court considering a claim of qualified 19 immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 20 constitutional right and whether such right was “clearly established.”

Fink-Carver v. Kuhn

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2024

While Plaintiffs have 20 failed to identify case law indicating that Kuhn’s use of force was objectively unreasonable in 21 violation of clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes, a jury watching Kuhn’ … Accordingly, Armas’s consent was not valid as to Carver under clearly established law at 12 the time of the incident. 13 Kuhn’s final qualified immunity argument is that

Machado v. Boyd

District Court, N.D. California · May 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity 15 While the § 1983 claims are subject to dismissal on the merits, the Court will address 16 whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Mot. at 20.) 20 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 21 conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Maude v. Barboza

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2023

right and (2) that right was clearly 20 established at the time of the incident. … This right has been clearly established for many 2 years.

Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.

775 F. Supp. 1269 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 13, 1991

It is well established, and these cases recognize, that “the test for establishing patent venue is less strict than the standard required to establish patent infringement, for otherwise a disposition of the venue question … Given that indisputable fact, and the unforseeability of how much more data the FDA might want, and from what kinds of settings, it clearly was reasonable for Ventritex to seek to add highly qualified potential investigators

Upshur v. Love

474 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 1979

Plaintiff emphasizes that the class of which he is a member is extremely small, 9 yet this is clearly not sufficient to establish that the strict scrutiny standard is applicable. … The fact that the committee did not consider Upshur to be qualified for an administrative position is sufficient to establish that Section 504 was not violated in this case.

Ward v. Koenig

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

The defense of qualified immunity protects 18 “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 19 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In considering a claim of qualified 21 immunity, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 22 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that

Serrato

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2026

clearly established statutory or 19 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). 23 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[i]t was not clearly 24 established that investigating an anonymous tip and

Boyd

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2026

Under 13 the Midcal line of cases, “any action in restraint of trade is only immune if it satisfies a two-part 14 test: The anticompetitive policy not only must be (1) ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively 15 expressed … Section 2827 20 establishes net energy metering. Id. § 2827.

Strickland v. Ujiri

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 2021

“To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we 5 ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that 6 right was clearly established … a Constitutional violation, and whether 14 “the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established,” Mullenix v.

Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake

563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 2008

For these reasons, Plaintiffs must challenge an “agency action” to establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. … To fall within the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity under 5 U.S.C. § 702 , Plaintiffs must establish that they challenge final agency action for which there is no alternate adequate remedy.

Smith v. Diaz

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

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Dkt. No. 117 at 11 26–28. … Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014). 5 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “[a]n officer ‘cannot be said to 6 have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently

Raquel Chavez v. WYNAR

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

Whether the Right was Clearly Established at the Time of the Alleged Misconduct 17 As for the second question in the qualified immunity analysis, officers are entitled to 18 qualified immunity where their conduct … Whether the Right was Clearly Established at the Time of the Alleged Misconduct 19 As for the second question in the qualified immunity analysis, officers are entitled to 20 qualified immunity where their conduct

Huemer v. Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Foundation

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2024

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 19 would have known.” … The foregoing 16 analysis in this section explains why Montes is entitled to qualified immunity.