Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,024 results
0.46s
United States v. Fingers (In Re Fingers)
170 B.R. 419 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 8, 1994
However, the Ninth Circuit has held that an individual injured by willful automatic stay violations shall recover damages clearly traceable to such stay violations whether or not those damages are incurred before or after … The court in In re University Medical Center stated: UMC’s [the debtor’s] claim for attorneys’ fees and costs qualifies as property of the estate under Bankruptcy Code section 541.
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 2024
on the complaint 21 itself, that qualified immunity applies.” … But on this record, Plaintiff has plausibly 19 pleaded a violation of a clearly established right. See Wakefield v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 26, 2023
To determine whether an officer is entitled to 1 qualified immunity, courts must look to the particular circumstances of the case 2 and “not . . . define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” … violated a right that was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2021
Moreover, Aviles is also entitled to qualified immunity here. 7 B. … clearly established 21 law. 22 A federal right is “clearly established” when, at the time of the conduct in question, 23 the law was “sufficiently
Cited 0 timesUnknownSandoval v. San Diego, County of
District Court, S.D. California · Aug 29, 2024
7 standard and Sandoval’s rights were clearly established at the time. … Qualified Immunity 20 Qualified immunity contains two elements: (1) violation of the plaintiff’s 21 constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknown481 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 28, 2007
& R’s view would deprive Defendants of basic procedural rights af *1120 forded to ordinary defendants not sued by plaintiff-prisoners proceeding IFP, a result which does not square with the statute’s goal of minimizing clearly … Therefore, Wilhelm’s decision could not have been the result of established state procedure. III.
Cited 128 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Nov 20, 2025
immunity defense requires him to 27 analyze over ten Supreme Court cases on “clearly established law,” demonstrating 28 complexity beyond his capabilities. … While qualified immunity doctrine is 1 indeed sophisticated, pro se civil rights plaintiffs routinely navigate these issues without 2 appointed counsel. Alvarez v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown270 F.R.D. 566 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 2, 2010
Therefore, this Court concludes that the three investigative reports generated by CWC sought to be produced have a qualified immunity under the work-product doctrine. b. … immunity the documents possess.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · May 2, 2022
15 "Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless 16 their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 17 a reasonable person would have known.'" … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct 4 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 5 reasonable person would have known." Kisela,138 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 11, 2025
Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when the 3 official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established … Thus, Defendants Acevedo, Castillo, Marrs, Paredes, and 21 Valencia are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 15, 2022
Brisco is entitled to qualified immunity, 13 because she did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. While defendant 14 T. … (Citation omitted.) 6 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly 7 established constitutional right.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2021
conduct was ‘clearly 8 established at the time.’” … Mar. 17, 2011) (finding 13 the defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the 14 absence of ladders in double-bunked cells violated the Eighth Amendment) (collecting 15 cases
Cited 0 timesUnknown997 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 3, 2014
Good Samaritan Immunity The Court next addresses YahooFs argument that Section 230(c)(2)(B) of the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 , renders it immune from liability in this case. … The party seeking certification to appeal an interlocutory order has the burden of establishing the existence of such exceptional circumstances. Id.
Cited 13 timesPublished719 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 2, 2010
In two recent opinions, the Supreme Court established a more stringent standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. … A shooting at the border involving a law enforcement officer and an illegal alien is clearly a newsworthy event.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Oct 30, 2025
Qualified Immunity 8 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability 9 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 11 Pearson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 3, 2020
contends that Defendants Nguyen and McGouch are not entitled to qualified 14 immunity. … immunity if the law is “clearly established 15 such that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the 16 situation he confronted.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2022
Defendants 24 || also seek dismissal claiming Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because even if 25 ||a constitutional violation is found, Plaintiffs right was not clearly established. (/d. … Aug. 6, 2012) (granting qualified 21 ||}immunity after finding pre-existing law was not clearly established as to when a slippery 22 || floor becomes a sufficiently substantial risk); McLaughlin v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · May 4, 2023
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials 15 are protected from civil liability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 16 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-prong test that 19 requires the Court to determine 1) whether the plaintiff’s alleged facts establish a 20 violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether that right was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Aug 13, 2019
(Meidinger MTD II [Doc. 33-1] 5–17.) 6 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as 7 their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity is applicable 25 unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 26
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna