Case law

Cuviello v. City of Belmont

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2023

Shearer also contends that the court should grant her grant qualified immunity. 5 “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 6 damages insofar as their conduct does … 4 plausibility standard for pleading a claim and the “low bar” for establishing qualified immunity. 5 Keates v.

Doe v. City and County of San Francisco

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

The SFPD’s use of Doe’s DNA “exceed[ed] the scope of the consent given,” which was a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. McWeeney, 454 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fla. v. … But at this early stage, Doe has stated a plausible Fourth Amendment claim for which qualified immunity doesn’t apply.

Application of Caldwell

311 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 8, 1970

This is clearly evidenced by the affidavit of Mr. John B. Bates and is not disputed. … Finally, the Court has read and considered the memorandum and exhibits filed by the Government in Miscellaneous No. 10410, in support of its Application for Immunity for Sherrie Bursey and Brenda Joyce Presley.

Chapman v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

456 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1978

Plaintiffs did not prove, however, that they were qualified for but denied promotions for that period. … Under the proration previously established, plaintiffs are entitled to an award of one-ninth of $4,720 (590 hours X $8), or $525. B.

Abels v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

227 F.R.D. 541 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2005

Randolph Bragg, has been qualified and found competent to represent similar class actions. Thus, it seems, the named representative appears able to prosecute this action vigorously through qualified counsel. ii. … Clearly, statutory monetary damages do not predominate.

Peavy

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 2026

The court found that 4 the prosecutors were behaving as investigators, not advocates, during the time that they allegedly 5 fabricated the evidence and thus were only entitled to qualified immunity. … Its facts, however, ] invalidates the Sixth Amendment claim; I found that she had not pleaded facts sufficient to 2 || establish a Sixth Amendment claim.

United States v. Gonzalez-Ruiz

369 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 2005

110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), in which the Court held that only “generic burglary” — that is, an “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime” — qualifies … Judge Koziniski took issue with this broad reading of Marcucci asserting that “[a] court cannot declare a grand jury instruction constitutional en gross and immunize it from all future constitutional challenges.”"

De Malherbe v. International Union of Elevator Constructors

438 F. Supp. 1121 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 1977

The purpose of EINRTP is to provide a comprehensive national recruitment and training program for qualified and qualifiable members of minority groups. … These statements of the sponsor of the legislation clearly establish that it was intended to prohibit only discriminatory legislation of the states.

Golson v. Narvaez

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 2023

The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for 15 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 16 constitutional rights of which a reasonable … 8 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Nieto v. Allison

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 2025

ECF No. 35-1 at 21-22. 4 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 5 damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must 15 consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was 16 clearly established at the time

Somers v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc.

119 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 22, 2015

That is, section 78j-1 clearly requires internal reporting of illegal acts, and does not contemplate any report of such acts to the SEC, except in limited circumstances. … As another example, subsection (iii) clearly covers internal reports required of attorneys under Sarbanes Oxley.

Finkelstein v. Bergna

804 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 1992

In the paragraphs that follow we consider briefly each of the kinds of claims which formally yielded no relief in this litigation. i) The First Amendment claim against Bergna was dismissed on a legal ground (qualified immunity … For example, the Ninth Circuit twice considered defendant Bergna’s claim that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the due process and First Amendment issues, reversing itself the second time on the latter issue.

Smith v. Madsen

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 2022

A court considering a claim of qualified 10 immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 11 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it … Therefore, her 17 argument for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds fails. 18 2.

Shiheiber v. Hernandez

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 18, 2022

Whether Officer Hernandez is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 16 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary 17 functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as … All of these violations involve clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment of 5 which a reasonable officer would have been aware.

Bynum v. City of Pittsburg

622 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 27, 1985

The court relied heavily on the fact that the Third Circuit did not have a well-established statute of limitations in § 1983 actions prior to Wilson . … Garcia militate clearly in favor of retroactive application, neither do they militate against such application.” Id. at 196 .

Brown v. Losacco

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2020

Qualified Immunity 21 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 22 their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens … To determine whether an 6 || officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 7 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established

Turner v. City & County of San Francisco

892 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 29, 2012

Plaintiff alleges he was qualified for each position but never hired. He then applied for a survey assistant 2 position with the Millbrae office of SFPUC in 2005, for which he was also qualified but not hired. FAC ¶ 9. … As reflected by the language above, “[t]o establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that an individual acting under the color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the United States

Kapp v. National Football League

390 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 1974

president of the AFL Players’ Association to its members stating that pro-football must remain competitive if it is to attract the consumers of our entertainment product —the fans; that the history of professional sports clearly … Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 , 61 S.Ct. 463 , 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941) established that union conduct is generally immune from the antitrust laws. In Allen Bradley Co. v.

Vasquez v. City of San Jose

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

Qualified Immunity 19 Defendants also argue for entry of summary judgment in their favor because the Officers 20 are entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus even if the 3 Officers’ conduct was excessive their actions would be protected under qualified immunity 4 because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

United States v. $49,790 in United States Currency

763 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 2010

Presumably, the Ninth Circuit would review the court’s findings under the “clearly erroneous” standard of FRCP 52(a). Starsky, 512 F.2d at 111 . … foundation to establish the relevance of Dugan’s alert.