Case law

Brown v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 2025

Qualified immunity 8 shields state and local officials from § 1983 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate 9 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome this immunity, a plaintiff must prove both “that (1) the 12 official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at 13 the time of the challenged conduct

Tyson v. City of Sunnyvale

920 F. Supp. 1054 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1996

that they had a property right protected by the due process clause; (3) the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) plaintiffs’ claim for damages is unsupported by the evidence. 1 II. … It is unnecessary to address defendants' alternative arguments regarding res judicata, collateral estoppel, qualified immunity, and damages.

Optinrealbig. Com, LLC v. Ironport Systems, Inc.

323 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 2004

This, however, must be countered by, the numerous news articles that clearly establish that Optln’s reputation as a spammer precedes it. It is being sued by the state of New York and Microsoft Corporation. … Again, based on the record, Optln has not established that it is likely to prevail on its claim of interference with prospective economic advantage. 3.

United States Ex Rel. Gamerston & Green Lumber Co. v. Phœnix Assurance Co. of New York

163 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 27, 1958

by the Department of the Army.” *717 By these Regulations the Secretary has established a well rounded and clearly defined system for the management and use of money and property of the United States. … They are “entitled to all the immunities and privileges which are available under the Federal Constitution and statutes to the departments and agencies of the Federal Government.”

County of Santa Cruz, Cal. v. Ashcroft

279 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2003

The Patienh-Plaintiffs have submitted declarations in the present case that establish clearly the harm they have suffered and continue to suffer because of Defendants’ actions and because they are denied access *1200 to medicinal … However, the United States and its employees, sued in their official capacities, are immune from suit unless sovereign immunity has been waived. Kentucky v.

Jones v. Mora

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

To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 19 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 20 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established … Because resolution of these factual 16 disputes is critical to a proper determination of Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, 17 summary judgment on qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Belton

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 5, 2026

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). 18 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 19 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A court 25 considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the 26 deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such 27 that

Walters v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 15, 2019

the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … The Ninth Circuit 6 affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, holding that the complaint alleged a 7 Fourth Amendment violation and that it was clearly established that the agent could not shoot the

Aycrigg v. United States

124 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 1, 1954

Congress alone has power to waive or qualify that immunity. … Husson, 8 N.Y.Super.Ct. (1 Duer) 617, said: ‘The rules by which proceedings are governed are rules of procedure; those by which rights are established and defined, *419 rules of law.

P.C. v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 2025

Qualified Immunity 26 County Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity against Count 2. 27 … a constitutional right and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established, such 4 that a reasonable official would understand that his conduct violated that right.”

Seawinds Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines, B.V.

80 B.R. 181 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 1987

That statute had established the United States Shipping Board (predecessor of the FMC) to regulate the ocean shipping industry, setting out a comprehensive regulatory scheme and granting limited immunity to ocean shipping … The court’s statement may be intended to reflect the fact that the complaint before it, which was filed in January 1985, arguably qualified under the saving provision of § 1719(e)(2)(B).

Estate of David Pelaez Chavez v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 15, 2024

The qualified immunity 3 analysis considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that 4 right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … While 20 qualified immunity “does not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, 21 existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Manda v. Albin

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 2019

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-part approach for analyzing 22 qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 (2001). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 6 (2009) Thus, in assessing a defense of qualified immunity, deciding whether plaintiff’s claimed 7 right was “clearly established” is the central inquiry.

Galindo v. City of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2024

Allen does not defeat qualified immunity. First, this case is 16 merely persuasive, not controlling on this Court, and therefore this case alone cannot establish 17 “clearly established law.” See D.C. v. … .”). 24 So, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the officers violated a “clearly established right,” 25 and therefore the officers’ conduct is immunized by qualified immunity.

United States v. Crocker National Corp.

422 F. Supp. 686 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 27, 1976

Bankers often have valuable experience and expertise that qualify them to render valuable service in this role. Interlocking directorates, in other words, are not inherently wrong. … Accordingly, categorically banning directors of banks and other lending institutions from serving on the boards of directors of insurance companies could clearly reduce the number of qualified directors, possibly to the detriment

Brewster v. Mills

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2022

However, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this 8 conduct deprived Plaintiff of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established 9 at the time of the alleged misconduct … But the court did not consider the 14 scope of such Eighth Amendment protection, and did not consider whether any such right was 15 clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Washington v. Duty Free Shoppers

696 F. Supp. 1323 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 13, 1988

Thus, courts traditionally have not treated concerted action within a corporation as establishing an antitrust conspiracy. See Stathos v. … The complaint clearly states facts sufficient to support a cause of action. IV. The Court is not concerned that this ruling will turn § 1985(3) into an all-purpose federal tort law.

Arrellano v. Sonoma County

District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2024

not dispute that social workers may be entitled to qualified immunity. 2 However, they argue that Mistry is not entitled to qualified immunity in this case because she 3 clearly violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional … Opp’n 13. 4 To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show not only that Mistry violated their 5 constitutional rights, but also that the rights were “clearly established at the time of the officer

STATE OF CAL., ETC. v. United States

512 F. Supp. 36 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 1981

This principle was established by court-made law ( see, Weber v. … Thus, the Hart and the two Park County cases [1] are clearly distinguishable because in none of these cases was a state asserting its title rights to land held in trust for the public.

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

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

State of Alaska, 46 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1995) 2 (table) (affirming grant of qualified immunity when allegations were “too general to establish a 3 violation of a clearly established right such that a reasonable official … stage, a complaint will survive a 12 qualified immunity defense if it “contains even one allegation of a harmful act that would 13 constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”