Case law

Dees v. California State University, Hayward

33 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 1998

section 503 also immune from judicial review. … “In fact, a complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.”

Williams v. County Of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2020

, establish the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was 21 clearly established such that a reasonable government official would have known that his conduct 22 was unlawful in the situation … Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1035 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 661 1 of evidence during a protective custody proceeding was clearly established.”

Manda v. Albin

District Court, N.D. California · May 22, 2020

In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the central inquiry is whether plaintiff’s 23 claimed right was “clearly established.” Id. at 818–19. … In other words, qualified immunity only 24 applies where an officer’s conduct does not violate clearly established law. Pearson v. Callahan, 25 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

(PC) Blueford v. Salinas Valley State Prison

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2020

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 24 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 25 and whether such a right was clearly established such that it … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (overruling the sequence of the two-part 1 clearly established, as required by Saucier).

Williams v. County Of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 17, 2019

immunity shields government officials performing discretionary 14 functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 15 statutory or constitutional rights of which a … , establish the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was 20 clearly established such that a reasonable government official would have known that his conduct 21 was unlawful in the situation

Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

61 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 1999

Both documents clearly show the date-stamp of FERC and refers to the docket number under which the request is filed, and is readily accessible through the Internet. See RJN, Exhs. 3, 10. … The court rejected plaintiffs claims in holding that defendants’ petitioning activity before the CPUC was clearly protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Id.

Laurel v. County of Alameda

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

Qualified Immunity Does Not Bar the Claims In evaluating a grant of qualified immunity, a court considers whether (1) the state actor’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly … When qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, a court must determine “whether the facts alleged in the complaint, assumed to be true, yield the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to immunity.”

Bradway

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that, if the Court finds that Bradway has pled a constitutional vio- lation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 12 at 14. … Consequently, at this pleading stage, qualified immunity does not apply.

Scott

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

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 5 their duties, not to stand trial or face the other … violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. 18 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Allen v. City of Antioch

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2024

Wenger is not entitled to qualified immunity, at least at the motion to dismiss stage. … It has been clearly established since 1998 that “improper encouragement” of an excessively long dog bite is a constitutional violation. Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998).

Hampton v. State of California

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2022

Disputed facts preclude qualified immunity. 1 “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 2 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a clearly established constitutional right.

City of Santa Clara, Cal. v. Kleppe

418 F. Supp. 1243 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 23, 1976

Sovereign Immunity. … Since we hold that under established law, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar this action, we need not consider the possibility that the Administrative Procedure Act operates as a partial waiver of sovereign immunity

Vincent v. San Francisco Sheriff's Office

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 2020

However, officers sued in an individual 9 capacity may assert a defense based on qualified immunity, which would preclude their liability in 10 cases where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Cooper v. Federal Aviation Administration

816 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2008

The Court did not, however, reach the issue whether non-pecuniary harm, such as emotional distress, qualifies as actual damages. Chao, 540 U.S. at 622 n. 5, 124 S.Ct. 1204 . … DOT-OIG’s sharing of social security numbers, dates of birth and gender is clearly beyond the scope of this routine use.

Beckner

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

Beckner’s constitutional 27 rights and clearly established law. County Defendants’ MSJ at 22. To defeat a defense of 1 right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time. Saucier v. … These factual disputes preclude a finding of qualified immunity.

Nguyen v. City Of San Jose

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

Qualified Immunity 16 Finally, Supervisor Defendants argue that they are immune to any liability under the 17 doctrine of qualified immunity. … Where the defendant properly 22 raises the defense of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, district courts in the Ninth Circuit 23 have held that the plaintiff bears the burden to show that qualified immunity

Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of Trustees

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2020

At the motion to dismiss stage, a 13 complaint will survive a qualified immunity defense if it “contains even one allegation of a 14 harmful act that would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … State of Alaska, 46 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1995) (table) 4 (affirming grant of qualified immunity when allegations were “too general to establish a violation 5 of a clearly established right such that a reasonable official

In Re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation

521 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 1981

When Hertz sold some of its used cars, it advised the Port that employees would qualify for a “special $25.00 allowance off the sale price of the car.” (Ex. 79.) … under Noerr so long as the government action itself would be immune under Parker.” 23 .

Luckert v. Gutierrez

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 2022

20 For all these reasons, summary judgment is denied for Gutierrez. 21 Qualified Immunity 22 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 2 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 3 and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would

Vitti v. Jones

District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2024

In conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the court must ask “(1) did the officer 25 violate a constitutional right, and (2) was that right ‘clearly established at the time of the events at 26 issue’?” Id. … Vitti could 17 allege that Officer Sept violated a “clearly established right,” Officer Sept would be entitled to 18 qualified immunity because his belief that he acted lawfully was reasonable. 19 Unlawful