Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,024 results
1.79s
Young v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
District Court, S.D. California · Aug 1, 2025
Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s qualified 14 immunity defense is premature. (Doc. … No. 68 at 7.) 15 Qualified immunity under federal law shields government officials from liability for 16 civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory
Cited 0 timesUnknown996 F. Supp. 2d 933 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 4, 2013
Despite the cribbing, Exhibit C to the Complaint establishes that Plaintiffs federal trademark infringement claim is sufficiently pleaded. … Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish the fame of its mark, an essential element to a federal trademark dilution claim.
Cited 5 timesPublishedThe Estate of Michael Wilson v. County of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California · Apr 8, 2024
run 3 afoul of clearly established law.” … Thus, in the 23 absence of binding precedent, we “‘look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain 24 whether the law is clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes, ‘including 25 decisions
Cited 0 timesUnknownKohler v. Islands Restaurants, LP
280 F.R.D. 560 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 16, 2012
In Robbins, the Tenth Circuit applied Twombly and Iqbal to qualified immunity pleadings. 519 F.3d at 1246-48 . … But, the same court also identified the qualified immunity pleadings as part of the complaint, not as an affirmative defense.
Cited 54 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2021
Qualified immunity shields 26 government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages 27 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity under the “clearly 7 || established” prong.* 8 II. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons set out above, Defendant’s motion
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2025
and that qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for 28 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights.” … establishes a complete 10 |/bar to Plaintiffs claims. 11 || VI.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAgro Dynamics, LLC v. Drug Enforcement Administration
District Court, S.D. California · Sep 19, 2023
“In 11 determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, [courts] consider (1) 12 whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was 13 clearly established at … As to the first question in Sandoval, it is clearly established 3 that County Officers violated this right for the reasons already discussed above in the 4 section on qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 22, 2022
Qualified Immunity 2 “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, [courts] 3 consider (1) whether there has been a violation of … Clearly Established Law 16 This does not conclude the Court’s analysis, however, as Deputies Shea and 17 Lizarraga contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Nov 26, 2024
established” at the time of the incident. 22 “For the purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if ‘a reasonable 23 officer would recognize that his or her conduct violates … “If a right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled 4 to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jul 27, 2023
Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 6 established that his COVID-19 response was constitutionally deficient. … “qualified immunity should be more appropriately addressed at a later 19 stage[,]” while also collecting cases that show that an “existing precedent clearly 20 establishes the right of an individual in custody
Cited 0 timesUnknownDaniels v. County of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2024
Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s 10 conduct “’does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 11 reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … However, the Supreme Court 6 “does not require a case directly on point” to show that a right is clearly established for 7 purposes of qualified immunity. Salvi v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jan 30, 2020
Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Battad is not entitled 18 to qualified immunity for his actions which “violated a constitutional right and clearly established 19 statutory [rights].” … If an officer 2 makes a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires – i.e. the right is not clearly established 3 – the officer is entitled to immunity. Id. at 202-03.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJiminez v. The United States of America
District Court, S.D. California · Sep 15, 2021
To determine whether a police officer is entitled to 1 qualified immunity, a court must consider whether: (1) the officer’s conduct violated 2 a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the … that 10 he is protected by qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law at 11 the time of the shooting that put Defendant Gonzalez on notice that his actions 12 violated Llanez’s rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHipschman v. County of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2023
Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if 5 (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly … qualified immunity applies.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · May 10, 2022
their 9 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 10 person would have known.’” … “clearly established” at the time the alleged violations occurred in 2016.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Dec 22, 2022
Qualified Immunity. 27 Defendant alternatively argues that qualified immunity bars Plaintiff's claims for 28 damages. … However, future discovery 21 may show that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown987 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 8, 1997
Proof submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be clearly reducible to admissible form at trial. … Since defendant is the moving party, it bears the burden of establishing such information.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 2, 2021
The Court GRANTED Williams’ qualified immunity with regard 1 to the “take down” of Plaintiff but DENIED Williams’ qualified immunity for the “punch 2 or punches to [Plaintiff’s] head after he was taken to the ground.” … Specifically, Williams “requests reconsideration of the order 5 at the point where the Court denied qualified immunity for the alleged punch(es) based 6 on the find that the right was clearly established by Blankenhorn
Cited 0 timesUnknownIn Re Immune Response Securities Litigation
497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, S.D. California · May 31, 2007
The Court also recognizes that the issues of scienter and causation are complex and difficult to establish at trial. … This factor clearly favors settlement. G. Involvement of a Government Entity There are no government participants in this case. Thus, this factor is inapplicable. H.
Cited 54 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2022
sufficient 5 evidence to withstand summary judgment, the Deputy Defendants are entitled to qualified 6 immunity because no clearly established case law provided notice that their conduct in this 7 context was unlawful … The 24 issue here is not whether the Deputy Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to 25 the administrative search, but whether they are entitled to qualified immunity for going 26 “hands on” and ultimately
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna