Case law

King v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · May 12, 2022

immunity. … The contours of the Eighth Amendment right in these circumstances are not clearly established. King has not pointed to a case finding an Eighth Amendment violation on facts resembling these.

In Re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

554 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 2008

In this case, there is good reason to conclude that Defendants are not categorically immune under Section 1. … If NCAA presented the last word on the subject, the rule of reason would clearly apply.

Arteaga v. City of Oakley

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2021

Arteaga also argues that Buck is not entitled to summary 3 judgment based on qualified immunity, because the prohibitions against arrest without probable 4 cause or in retaliation for speech are clearly established. … established 10 law, and Buck would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Lam v. United States

389 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2019

photographs and videos taken of the tree cluster about one month after the accident and identified a "large, central trunk cavity (significant structural defect) in the lower trunk are of the subject tree revealed by and clearly … Sovereign Immunity, the FTCA, and the Discretionary-Function Exception A district court has no jurisdiction over a lawsuit against the United States unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity.

Styling Plastics Co. v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd.

666 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 1987

The bill' of lading, as in this case, may extend certain immunities, exemptions, and limitations to certain non-carriers as long as the bill of lading clearly and expressly extends such COGSA provisions to a non-carrier who … Todd Shipyards Corp., 500 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.1974): “[T]he Herd opinion might be interpreted to mean that a bill of lading, if it clearly and expressly extends a COGSA exemption, immunity or limitation to a non-carrier who

North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica

274 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 2003

Moreover, even if established, the privilege can be overcome because it is a qualified privilege; that is, “[a] litigant may obtain deliberative materials [or information] if his or her need for the materials [or information … The privilege, however, as noted above, is qualified and may be overcome.

Atienza v. Town of Danville

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 26 “Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if 27 constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends … Because the inquiry turns on “fair 2 notice,” “[i]f the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate 3 the Constitution,” the officer is immune from suit. Id.

Mahoney v. Crocker National Bank

571 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 2, 1983

Congress gave national banks certain immunity from liability for their dismissals of officers. … The common law tort of wrongful discharge is recognized in California where a discharge clearly violates an express statutory provision, or where the discharge contravenes a firmly established principle of public policy.

Missud v. Nevada

861 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2012

Judicial Immunity — Judicial Defendants Judge Ryu recommends dismissing Plaintiffs complaint against the Judicial Defendants on the basis of judicial immunity. … For the reasons stated above, Missud’s conduct qualifies for the Court’s discretionary imposition of sanctions, including a pre-filing order.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Pharmacia, Inc.

130 F.R.D. 116 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 1990

Work Product Doctrine The work product doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the seminal decision of Hickman v. … The letter clearly states its purpose is to help clarify some of the problems related to the filing of the ’366 patent application.

Gonzalez v. Ahern

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

; and (10) no clearly established constitutional right. … Defendants’ 15 deprivation of rights and no clearly established constitutional right affirmative defenses are 16 likewise redundant of the qualified immunity affirmative defense. (Id. at 34.)

Goehring v. Wright

858 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 1994

. *996 “References to memoranda ... do not qualify as motions under Rule 56(f) [which] requires affidavits setting forth the particular facts expected from the movant’s discovery. … The defense is established if the substance of the charge is true, irrespective of slight inaccuracies. “ ‘If the defendant proves the substance, the gist or the sting of the charge is true, it is sufficient to establish

Colombo v. Palo Alto Unified School District

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2025

Defendants argue that even if they violated Plaintiff’s due process 14 rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly 15 established law. Mot. 12–13; Reply 11–13. … Plaintiff counters that “no reasonable school 16 administrator would disagree” that Defendants violated his clearly established rights and, 17 alternatively, that qualified immunity cannot be resolved on a motion to

Mitchell v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2022

immunity on the 5 ground that it is not “clearly established” that a plaintiff “may bring a claim for malicious 6 prosecution based on his seizure prior to the commencement of his criminal proceedings.” … immunity is whether “the unlawfulness of [officers’] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

California Packing Corp. v. States Marine Corp. of Del.

187 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 1960

He stated clearly and emphatically his opinion that sealing the holds is the best policy on these voyages. … Respondent is clearly liable here, The circumstances surrounding the voyage of the Beaver State differ from the pattern that has been established. This was a summer voyage, commencing in August, 1955.

Lopez v. Thomas

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2023

Immunity 6 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 7 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 14 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 15 and whether such a right was clearly established such that it

Bates v. Rezentes

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Rezentes is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Bates has a viable excessive force claim, the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether Rezentes “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Cleveland Macaroni Co. v. State Board of Health

256 F. 376 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 3, 1919

These principles are thus aptly and clearly expressed in the Weigle Case: “The Food and Drugs Act indicates its intent to respect the recognized lino of distinction between domestic and interstate commerce too clearly to … The fact that a food or drug might be condemned by Congress, if it passed from state to state, does not carry an immunity oí foods or drugs, making the same passage, that it does not condemn.

Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services

District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 2025

immunity, see Keates v. … Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 23 2018) (holding, at pleading stage, plaintiff alleging civil rights claim against individual 24 must plead facts to support finding individual's conduct "violated clearly established

Sundstrom v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

816 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 1993

The Boyle defense clearly bars the design defect claim. … Under controlling Ninth Circuit authority and Boyle , that more limited claim is also barred when defendants have established government contractor immunity.