Case law

Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

586 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 27, 2008

Veoh’s Policies Veoh has established Terms of Use and Acceptable Use policies, which are posted on its website. … While the DMCA’s safe harbors do not immunize qualified service providers from liability, “[t]hey do ... protect eligible service providers from all monetary and most equitable relief that may arise from copyright liability

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

Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 2d 941 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2003

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that California law extends a qualified privilege to compete in business dealings because the law favors free competition. See A-Mark Coin Co. v. … Even if the court assumes that Boyd was “one of TeraRecon’s largest shareholders,” plaintiff fails to allege facts establishing that Boyd received a benefit from the alleged wrongful conduct.

In re Delgado

57 F. Supp. 460 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 11, 1944

Establishment and purpose “There is hereby created and established a United States Coast Guard Reserve *461 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Reserve’), the purpose of which is to provide a trained force of officers and enlisted … The part time service of the temporary reservist equivalently qualifies him.

Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co.

6 F.R.D. 219 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 13, 1946

It *220 is clearly indicated in Palmer v. … It is the same foundation upon which we base the immunity of the judge for his official acts in that capacity.

Saxton v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 17, 2025

Claim against Sheriff Essick 18 Defendants contend that Sheriff Essick is entitled to qualified immunity because in 2020 19 there was no clearly established law “recognizing a viable Eighth … established for decades. 23 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly 24 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Rabkin v. Dean

856 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 22, 1994

be liable for conspiring with the immune party. … Section 37 is clearly intended to protect city employees, not elected officials. Accordingly, this cause of action is dismissed with prejudice. G.

Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran

927 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 28, 2013

Accordingly, Bank Melli contends, seizing Bank Melli’s assets now to satisfy a judgment based on “conduct that occurred before Congress enacted [the laws] would clearly ‘increase [Bank Melli’s] liability for past conduct. … The Supreme Court reversed, explaining that the Court of Appeals had not given the necessary weight to the absent entities’ assertion of sovereign immunity: “where sovereign immunity is asserted, and the claims of the sovereign

Vargas v. Lopez

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 28, 2025

The defense of qualified 6 immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their 7 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A court considering 9 a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of 10 an actual constitutional right and whether such right was “clearly established.”

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.’”

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.

Harrell v. California State University

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 16, 2024

Several Defendants Maintain Qualified Immunity as to the Constitutional Claims. 5 The individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … State officials 6 are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate 7 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Kissner v. Loma Prieta Joint Union School District

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 30, 2024

This order therefore discusses (A) qualified immunity law; (B) whether it was 23 clearly established that disclosure would deprive Kissner of a constitutionally protected 24 interest; and (C) whether it was clearly … Police Dep’t, 8 756 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014)). 9 “In considering what constitutes ‘clearly established’ law for purposes of qualified 10 immunity, the Supreme Court has

Adetuyi v. City of San Francisco

63 F. Supp. 3d 1073 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 7, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to some protected class; (2) he was qualified for her position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer … Batres was deemed qualified to be acting supervisor based on her experience and relevant knowledge. Mot. at 9. Thus, as a reasonable jury could determine that both were qualified for the position.

Anderson v. Trustees of the California State University

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2021

If the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity shields 12 official defendants. See ibid. “[E]xisting precedent must have placed the statutory or 13 constitutional question beyond debate.” … A qualified immunity defense does not apply as to the equal protection claim 2 because, “The right to non-discriminatory administration of” policing “is clearly established.” 3 Elliot-Park v.

Garrett v. Governing Board of Oakland Unified School District

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2022

To determine whether qualified immunity 8 applies, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pled a violation of a constitutional 9 right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established … be protected by qualified immunity.”).

Vellenoweth v. City of Napa

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity 11 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar 12 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “An officer is entitled to qualified 15 immunity unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right 16 and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Hudacko v. Lee

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

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 25 plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was 26 clearly established so that it would … Under the second prong of the 6 qualified immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if its contours are sufficiently clear 7 that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Ashmus v. Calderon

31 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 24, 1998

Failure to establish any of these qualifying procedures is fatal to a claim that Chapter 154 applies. B. … Nevertheless, Congress also clearly mandated compliance with the quid pro quo arrangement — no state is entitled to the benefits of Chapter 154 unless the qualifying procedures are “established.”

Washington v. Serrato

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 2024

No. 21 at 10. 25 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 1 Fitzgerald … 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 24 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 25 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether