Case law

Robert John Stockton v. Smith, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 6 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 8 consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was 9 clearly established

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education

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

Id. ¶ 67. 13 • “These practices continue to date and are ongoing within the SCCOE establishment.” … Eleventh Amendment Immunity as to SCCOE in Count Three 10 Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs’ new FEHA claim against SCCOE must be dismissed 11 because California has not waived its immunity to FEHA actions

City and County of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

957 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 1997

of tobacco, that immunity extends only to product liability suits. … Glen & Helen Aircraft, Inc., 777 F.2d 496, 498 (9th Cir.1985), for the proposition that financial loss derived from personal injury may qualify as a RICO injury.

Lacy v. City of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 2020

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendants argue that even if the seizure of D.G.’s phone violated the constitution, they 3 are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … “In determining whether an officer is entitled to 4 qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; 5 and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Aycrigg v. United States

136 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 1954

The crucial question is: Are those findings “clearly erroneous”, and, if so, to what extent? 1. … The weight to be given the opinion of the witness was a matter for the argument of counsel and the determination of the jury, but clearly, we think, the witness was qualified to express an opinion.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In Re Copper Mountain Securities Litigation

311 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 2004

I. • On September 27, 2000, Creelman stated that CM sold a significant amount of equipment to “established” CLEC customers. … In addition, a present-tense statement may qualify as forward-looking “if the truth or falsity of the statement cannot be discerned until some point in time after the statement is made.” Splash I, 2000 U.S. Dist.

Santiago v. Brennan

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2020

Defendant argues 5 that the amended complaint should be dismissed for: (1) failure to comply with Federal Rules of 6 Civil Procedure Rules 8 and 10; (2) failure to establish jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity from … Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “‘[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it 13 consents to be sued . . . , and

PUGA

District Court, N.D. California · May 8, 2026

In 16 response, Plaintiffs contest the applicability of qualified and statutory immunity, but do not 17 otherwise respond to Defendants’ arguments. Opp. at 21–25. 18 1. … Plaintiffs respond that no immunity applies. Opp. at 21–22.

United States v. Jaramillo

841 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 1994

The court in Tibbs required “certain notions of formality and convention” in order for a statement to qualify as ancillary to a proceeding under § 1623. … Jaramillo clearly knew that the matter was both formal, serious, and under penalty of perjury.

Burden v. Selectquote Insurance Services

848 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 2012

Centralized Servs., Inc., 457 F.2d 824 (4th Cir.1972), the court held that an income tax preparation service qualified as a retail or service establishment under the FLSA, notwithstanding a prior DOL interpretation stating … In other words, Select-Quote has made life insurance sales more like the traditional insurance brokerages, which clearly are within the scope of § 779.317.

Hernandez v. I.S.U.

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2025

No. 28 at 26-29. 11 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 12 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine 15 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such 16 right was clearly established such that

Salcido

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

The only allegations concerning the Tesla owner are that Goff had a 12 conversation with him that “clearly showed” his car blocked the entrance, that Goff “was 13 able to encourage the owner” to press charges, and that … City of L.A., 1 Accordingly, the Court need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments, including 2 || on qualified immunity. 3 || IV.

Diggs v. Clenindimd

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Diggs; 20 and that Defendants thus did not violate clearly established law. See MSJ at 15, 20. … Because this key fact underlies Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, but has 24 not been established, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified 25 immunity.

United States v. Johnson

227 F. Supp. 3d 1078 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2016

At the same time, the residual clause leaves uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony. … Even more clearly, reckless conduct as defined by Arizona law is not purposeful. See Ariz. Rev.

Airbnb, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2016

And plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance was “motivated by a desire to suppress speech.” Int’l Franchise Ass’n, 803 F.3d at 409 . … And that “at the time it is rented” is unclear because it does not specify clearly enough the moment in time that is covered. Id. at 27.

Rodriguez

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 2026

June 30, 13 2022), to assert that the blueprint “is a policy/procedure that is clearly subject to the First 14 Amendment.” Reply at 8. … public entities are immune 9 where their employees are immune, except as otherwise provided by statute.”

Trujillo-Lopez v. City of Vallejo

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

that right was “clearly established.” … Bureau of Investigation, 965 F.3d 1015, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2 2020) (intracorporate liability was not clearly established at the time of the events in the case and 3 therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity

Roles v. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2021

But 2 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they may rely on their state-created danger claim (a due 3 process claim) as a means of establishing abrogation of sovereign immunity for their ADA claim. 4 Congress’s … El-Tawansy is not raising a qualified immunity 7 argument, but see Reply at 14 n.2 (indicating that qualified immunity will likely be raised); rather, 8 her point is that there are no allegations in the complaint as

Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

2 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 1998

This was sufficient information to put AC Transit on notice that' Sims’ absence was due to a potentially FMLA-qualifying reason, and thus triggered AC Transit’s duty to inquire further into whether the leave qualified for … The court found that where “an employee claiming the right to leave under the FMLA has not established that a qualifying ‘health care provider’ made an assessment of his or her condition and concluded that proper treatment

Ervin v. Davis

150 F. Supp. 3d 1108 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2015

A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established U.S. … While a federal court may “look to circuit precedent to ascertain whether [the circuit] has already held that the particular point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent,” Marshall v.