Case law

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

378 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 1974

Clearly, generalities in rebuttal will not suffice; specific factual or legal explanations are necessary. Cf. Norris v. … Thus, if a person selecting- grand jurors intentionally excluded all left-handed persons, the exclusion would clearly be unconstitutional.

Simmons v. Luke

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

the issuance of a khaki dress in this 14 particular context did not violate any clearly established law. 15 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 16 … Id. at 236. 6 With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court 7 || has recently held that “[a]n officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right

Hampton v. State of California

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

Disputed facts preclude qualified immunity. 8 “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 9 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a clearly established constitutional right.

Quinto-Collins v. City of Antioch

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from 13 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 14 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To overcome qualified immunity, 8 “[i]t is the plaintiff[s] who bear[] the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were 9 clearly established.” Shafer v.

Reed v. Avis Rent-A-Car

29 F. Supp. 2d 1121 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 1998

The BLM’s determination concerning whether Burning Man organizers acted responsibly is discretionary and would qualify for protection under the discretionary function exception. … “Policies are the result of discretionary decisions and are established to guide the agency’s employees; a declaration of policy does not create a legally enforceable duty.” Concrete Tie of San Diego, Inc. v.

Bosworth v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity 1 does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 2 person would have known.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308. … The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for their warrantless entry 2 because “case law had clearly established that the officers’ entry was unlawful.” Id.

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Lungren

809 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 1992

The first sentence of section 17508.5 clearly establishes that the law applies only to manufacturers and distributors of consumer goods who make certain representations about their products: “It is unlawful for any person … As shown above, there is a substantial likelihood that qualifying language would not further the state’s interests.

Rhey v. Voong

District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2022

to qualified 2 immunity. … and the information she possessed at the time, she is protected by qualified immunity.”

Perez

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

Buller v. Woodrow

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

“Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from suit, not 18 merely from liability, ‘[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly 19 established law, a defendant pleading qualified … was “clearly established” at the 25 time of the challenged conduct.

Falcon

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

Johnson, Jr. v. Maguire Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 8, 2020

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether 1 was clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that her conduct was 2 unlawful in the situation she confronted. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) that 4 required determination of a deprivation first and then whether such right was clearly established.) 5 “An officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the

Lopez v. Holler

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

to qualified immunity. 19 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for 20 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 21 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity 23 must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional 24 right and whether such right was clearly established such that it

Smith v. Zavala

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2023

Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2020) 3 (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly 4 established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining whether a … Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 59 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding officer not entitled to 4 qualified immunity because it was clearly established that an arrest supported by probable 5 cause but made in retaliation for protected speech

Nguyen v. McHugh

65 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2014

Plaintiffs complaint to the EEOC in September 2010 was protected activity because it clearly alleged discrimination. … According to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v.

Perdomo v. Plumber

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

was not clearly 5 established. 6 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 7 for civil damages insofar as … entitled to qualified immunity under the second part of 20 the Saucier test because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established in the 21 specific context of this case.

Wilcher v. Gain

311 F. Supp. 754 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 1970

Plaintiffs, in a well articulated memorandum, advance several arguments for distinguishing Monroe in cases arising where, as in California, the individual State has waived its immunity to suit and allowed municipal liability … However, in no case brought to this Court’s attention has a state law remedy been allowed a plaintiff under § 1981 et seq. when that state law remedy was inconsistent with the remedial scheme established by the federal statute

Dew v. City of Seaside

District Court, N.D. California · May 4, 2021

The doctrine of 12 qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as 13 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Additionally, Defendant 10 Fernandez is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law that 11 would have placed him on notice that his conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

McNeff v. The City of Pleasanton

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2024

immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages 19 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 20 which a reasonable person would … was clearly established 23 at the time.’”

Smith v. Tamayo

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 10, 2020

Qualified Immunity 7 Defendants assert in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity 8 which bars liability. Dkt. … No. 16 at 21. 9 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 10 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established