Case law

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.

Ruiz v. Ahern

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendants move for summary judgment on Ruiz’s section 1983 excessive force claim as 9 to Solopow on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity … The doctrine of qualified 10 immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct 11 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Scott

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 16, 2026

Qualified Immunity 7 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 8 their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must 10 || consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional nght, and (2) that right was 11 clearly established

Lucido v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

217 F. Supp. 3d 1098 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2016

Tegzes is not qualified to express the above opinions. While Dr. … Almost certainly, the main human and veterinary health burden of mycotoxin exposure is related to chronic exposure (e.g., cancer induction, kidney toxicity, immune suppression).

Wiener v. NEC Electronics, Inc.

848 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 8, 1994

Federal courts have held that such statutes confer a qualified privilege on both the reporter and the federal agency involved. See e.g. … Because the required reports privilege is “qualified,” it can be outweighed by a showing of substantial need.

Matilton

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 22, 2025

Hawk is entitled to qualified immunity. 23 Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit “insofar as their conduct does not 24 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A case “clearly establishes” a 26 constitutional right for qualified immunity purposes if it is controlling precedent from the Ninth 27 Circuit or the Supreme Court and was decided before the alleged violation took

Cupp v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 2023

was clearly established at 5 the time of the incident.” … Id. 8 Defendants argue that Cupp does not allege that any right allegedly violated was clearly 9 established.

Arrellano v. Sonoma County

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

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability 18 pursuant to § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, Mistry is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. 4 IV.

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

King

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 21, 2026

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity 18 must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 19 and whether such right was clearly established such that it … Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014). 2 “[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth 3 Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

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.

Moke v. Celebrezze

236 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 1964

The Secretary refused to award the benefits because of his ruling that plain: tiff ha,d not established actual disability. … Although the claimant has not filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, there are no facts in dispute and he is clearly entitled to judgment.

Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.

287 F.R.D. 543 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 2012

Yerger qualified as an expert in archival research, that would not qualify her to opine on the subject matter of the documents she finds. Dr. … Smith is plainly qualified to testify regarding statistics and the established body of peer-reviewed research and studies linking smoking and lung cancer (or as to any other of his opinions that fall within the category of

Consumer Solutions Reo, LLC v. Hillery

658 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2009

(B) Qualified written request. … Hillery amend, she should clearly specify the particular factual basis of her FDCPA claim. H.

G. v. City of Lafayette

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2022

(2) the right was clearly 14 established at the time of the alleged violation.” … The question is 6 whether that right was “clearly established” at the time it was violated. 7 The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular—not 8 to define clearly established

Huemer v. Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Foundation

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 13, 2024

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 19 would have known.” … The foregoing 16 analysis in this section explains why Montes is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sausalito Pharmacy v. Blue Shield of California

544 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 1981

In denying this motion, we held that the second criteria in establishing immunity — the policy must be actively supervised by the state itself — was not sufficiently established. … The only case cited by plaintiffs is clearly distinguishable.

Ogbechie v. Covarrubias

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

That 20 is not accurate. 21 As the Court explained, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional 22 right was not “clearly established … Hence, Plaintiff has ll failed to identify a manifest error in the Court’s qualified immunity analysis. 12 IV.

Doe v. County of Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 25, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit,” 19 Pearson v. … “Qualified immunity does not demand absolute perfection from 4 officers in the performance of their duties.

York v. City of San Pablo

626 F. Supp. 34 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 1985

Motion for Summary Judgment by the Defendant-Officers (Hearn, Alforno, and Hamilton) “[Pjolice officers have a qualified immunity under section 1983 such that they are shielded from liability if they reasonably believe in … The Court nevertheless applies the standard of gross negligence here since it clearly represents the minimum standard for imposing liability on the municipal and supervisory defendants (“City defendants”).