Case law

Hernandez v. City of San Jose

241 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2017

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would

Committee for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma

644 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2009

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Nunez v. City of San Jose

381 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2019

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Whether the Right was Clearly Established at the Time of the Alleged Misconduct As for the second question in the qualified immunity analysis, officers are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct did not "violate

Aureguy v. Town of Tiburon

825 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 1993

Plaintiffs seek a ruling that defendants are not entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity in this matter. … Qualified Immunity A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly illegal official acts insofar as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Foster v. City of Oakland

675 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity Even if a law enforcement officer violates an individual’s constitutional *1005 rights, the officer may be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official from individual liability for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 so long as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hoesl v. United States

451 F. Supp. 1170 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 26, 1978

This qualified privilege in defamation actions should be distinguished from the qualified immunity available to executive officers in other types of actions. … Even if the California legislature has the authority to immunize federal employees, it clearly has not exercised it. 9 .

Silva v. City of San Leandro

744 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2010

a clearly established right. … In any event, Defendants assert, Officers Fletcher and Khan are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they did not violate a clearly established right. The Court rejects both contentions.

LOHARSINGH v. City and County of San Francisco

696 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2010

As it is clearly established that probable cause, or at least, reasonable suspicion, was required to detain Plaintiff, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. III. ANALYSIS A. … Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

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

Qualified Immunity 25 The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because Gonzales has not alleged a constitutional 9 deprivation, the Court need not decide whether the right was clearly established. 10 Nonetheless, the Court discusses this prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan

421 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 24, 1976

The defendants herein are each entitled to the defense of immunity under the theory of qualified immunity. Defendants have cited the case of Barr v. … Groff to be applicable to the instant case, it is nevertheless certain that the defendants are entitled to the defense of immunity even under the qualified immunity approach.

Call v. Badgley

254 F. Supp. 3d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2017

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

Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior College District

4 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1997

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The test for qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable official have believed his conduct was lawful?

Sanders v. Lockyer

365 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2005

immunity does not apply, California’s Qualifying Act and Contraband Amendment are not preempted by federal antitrust law. … See PTI, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1193 (“the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act”); Forces

Hart v. Celaya

548 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defense In the alternative, Defendants Celaya, Salopek and Camarena assert that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol

89 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2000

Plaintiffs thus clearly are alleging that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District. … or all of the immunities bar Plaintiffs’ claims. 3 Davison by Sims v.

K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District

219 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2016

That said, sovereign immunity—unlike qualified immunity—“partakes of the nature of jurisdictional bar” and may be raised for the first time, well, anytime. See Edelman v. … K.T. is clearly a “qualified individual with a disability” under both statutes—and the District does not suggest otherwise, see MTD at 12-15; Reply at 14-16.

Chien Van Bui v. City of San Francisco

61 F. Supp. 3d 877 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (citing Anderson v.

Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service

525 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 1981

Economou, supra, firmly established the principle that with rare exceptions federal officials charged with Constitutional violations can claim only the qualified immunity from prosecution enunciated in Scheuer v. … The Court concluded that qualified immunity constituted adequate protection for officials who vigorously exercise the lawful public authority vested in them.

Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District

167 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that the three individual defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on the basis of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity requires a two-step analysis. … If no constitutional right would have been violated if the allegations were established, then there is no need to continue the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Palacios v. City of Oakland

970 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 1997

The qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? and (2) under that law, could a reasonable official have believed the conduct to be lawful? Act Up! … Therefore, where the law is clearly established, an officer found to have used unreasonable force will not be entitled to qualified immunity. See id. 7 .