Case law

Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 21, 2021

1 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 2 reasonable person would have known.” … Finally, plaintiff does not plausibly allege that any remaining public 8 official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to overcome qualified immunity. 9 Again, plaintiff concedes on several occasions

Johnson v. Symantec Corp.

58 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 5, 1999

Section 17 Does not Require that an “Official Proceeding” be “Quasi-Judicial” The Fenelon court also was concerned that “to clothe with absolute immunity communications made to a body acting in other than a quasi-judicial … The Code establishes the law of this State respecting the subjects to which it relates, and its provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. 8 .

Owens v. Lee

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 3, 2024

Legal Claims 2 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 3 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). … And so is Deputy District Attorney Yasmin because it is well established that state prosecutors 23 are immune from suit for money damages for their conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” 24 when, as here, they

Ramirez v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 5, 2022

Officer Mendez also 21 argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claims against him. … Qualified Immunity 9 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 10 conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory

United States v. Martinez

225 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2016

Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000), where the Ninth Circuit found that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for a very similar search. I GRANT Martinez’s motion to suppress. BACKGROUND A. … City of Simi Valley, a civil rights case, in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, finding that a jury could conclude the officers acted unreasonably

Robinson v. Alameda County

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

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 … To determine whether an 17 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 18 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Peterson v. United States of America

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 2020

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 12 Federal officials are entitled to a qualified immunity defense5 whether they are facing 13 claims under Bivens or Section 1983. … “The 14 doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages 15 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 16 which

Stark v. Flemming

181 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 23, 1959

That factually supported inferences, even from uncontroverted facts are within the province of the fact finder, is well established. See Thurston v. Hobby, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 205 . … Such action is clearly within the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.

Ogbechie v. Covarrubias

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2020

26 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 27 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 1 Accordingly … Qualified Immunity 1 immunity.

Swany v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District

720 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 1989

Clearly, there is no liberty interest at stake here. … Individual Defendants raise the issue of statutory immunity. They contend they are shielded from liability for many of the acts complained of under various California immunity statutes.

United States v. City and County of San Francisco

656 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 1987

These facts clearly establish a prima facie violation of law entitling plaintiffs to judgment but for one complicating consideration: because the unused examinations have now been cancelled by the City, barring the possibility … Local 798 asserts that ‘‘[t]he issue of the validity of the examinations that have been withdrawn by defendants has ... not been clearly established.

Jefferson v. City of Fremont

73 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2014

In their Motion, Defendants seek qualified immunity as to Mr. Gonce. Qualified immunity does not apply, because Mr. Gonce is being sued in his official capacity. … "The only immunities that can be claimed in an official-capacity action are forms of sovereign immunity that the entity, qua entity, may possess, such as the Eleventh Amendment.”

Owens v. Fugate

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

To determine whether an 7 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 8 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time … Courts are not required to address the two qualified immunity issues in 10 any particular order, and instead may “exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two 11 prongs of the qualified immunity analysis

In Re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litigation

616 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 19, 1985

In Duke Power Co., supra, the Supreme Court summarized the applicable principles as follows: Our cases have clearly established that “[a] person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law.” … Although the probability of an epidemic was never established, the public was strongly urged to submit to immunization with little advice respecting its attendant hazards. R.

United Foods, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund

816 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 3, 1993

Congress passed the MPPAA in 1980 to establish a system for calculating and collecting the unfunded vested benefit (“UVB”) liability from employers who withdraw from pension plans. … The Fund is clearly mistaken for section 1132(g)(2) only governs actions to collect delinquent withdrawal liability. 13 Trustees of Amalgamated Ins. Fund v.

Worthy v. City of Berkeley

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 23, 2021

: “‘(1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … There 1 was clearly established prior to 2019 when the incident at issue took place. See Bias, 508 F.3d at 2 1220 (citing Maag v.

Hohu v. Hatch

940 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 2013

from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. … Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is also established through "original jurisdiction."

MacMillan v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · May 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity 24 “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 25 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … 26 the plausibility standard for pleading a claim and the “low bar” for establishing qualified 27 immunity.

C.M.O. v. County of San Mateo

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 2, 2021

No. 88 at 30-35. 8 “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the 9 official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Accordingly, 23 factual disputes preclude a finding of qualified immunity. See Wilkins v.

Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

980 F. Supp. 1336 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 1997

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain or, when viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant clearly is entitled to prevail as a matter … Plaintiffs Qualification under the ADA Wal-Mart claims that Nunes was not a “qualified individual with a disability,” and therefore cannot establish the second element of the prima facie case.