Case law

Reed v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 12, 2021

The R&R 7 further finds that Defendant Paramo is entitled to qualified immunity because the 8 undisputed facts establish that he did not violate any clearly established constitutional 9 rights of Plaintiff … However, the R&R finds that Defendant Zendejas 5 ||is not entitled to qualified immunity for the claim that she pointed a rifle at Plaintiff, as 6 || clearly established law holds that a law enforcement officer pointing

Williamson v. National City

District 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.”

Aznavorian v. Califano

440 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 23, 1977

whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, (cites omitted). … This court agrees with defendant that the decision declaring § 1611(f) of the Social Security Act unconstitutional establishes a “new principle of law” not clearly foreshadowed by past decision.

Lorenzo v. United States

719 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.

Watson v. Chessman

362 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 2, 2005

However, in this and other circuits, it is well established that only the person subject to IRS levy (in this case, Defendant Chessman) may bring a Quiet Title action under Section 2410. … Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Plaintiff has similarly failed to allege a specific waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Venson v. Jackson

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 16, 2020

Qualified Immunity (All Defendants) 20 Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ qualified immunity defenses because, he argues, 21 the constitutional rights purportedly violated by Defendants … were clearly established at the 22 time of the violation.

Narciso v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 17, 2022

Plaintiff suffered under 27 qualified immunity. … immunity. 3 “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have 4 ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

O'Brien v. Garcia

District Court, S.D. California · May 26, 2020

Alternatively, Garcia argues that he is entitled to 27 qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims. … Qualified Immunity 2 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 3 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

United States v. Hansen

233 F.R.D. 665 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 28, 2005

Further, there is no basis in the Federal Rules for Defendant to refuse to attend a deposition unless he is granted “witness immunity,” nor can this Court compel Plaintiff to grant him immunity. United States v. … It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified ... and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken. Id.

Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 18, 2023

“The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from civil liability 1 so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 2 rights of which a reasonable person would … But as the 23 law currently stands, the right is not clearly established “beyond debate.” Id. at 741. So, 24 the Court’s conclusion about qualified immunity was not clearly erroneous. 25 2.

Ward v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 28, 2025

MTD at 20-21. 6 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 7 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … itself, 26 that qualified immunity applies.”

Doe v. City of San Diego

35 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 1, 2014

Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to establish custom. Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir.1989). … Moreover, the City asserts that Plaintiff has “cobbled together” unrelated facts from an 18-year period to establish her claim.

Underwood

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 22, 2025

immunity because parents’ and children’s right to be free from 9 schoolhouse interviews by social workers was not clearly established as of January 10 22, 2024. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity 11 shields Defendants if right at issue was not “‘clearly established’ at the time of 12 defendant’s alleged misconduct”); Scanlon v.

Davis v. Saidro

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 26, 2021

Applicable Law 6 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 7 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, even if the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established 4 right, the government official is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have “reasonably 5 but mistakenly believed that his . . .

Durkin v. Shields

167 F.R.D. 447 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 15, 1995

Ill Work Product Immunity A. The Work Product Immunity and Application Plaintiffs and the RTC argue that the Steiner letters are not entitled to protection from discovery by the work-product immunity. … enjoy nearly absolute immunity from disclosure.

Salcedo-Albanez v. United States

149 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, S.D. California · May 23, 2001

Any waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed. See Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir.1982). … Clearly, Plaintiff did not arbitrarily formulate her $75,000 claim for damages.

Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego

311 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2004

Since the Court established this analysis, it has become somewhat less willing to imply a private right of action. See Touche Ross & Co. v. … Absolute Immunity The Supreme Court has long held that “legislators are absolutely immune from liability for their legislative activities.” See Bogan v.

B & L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 18, 2022

entitled to 7 qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ federal claims. … “Qualified immunity shields 8 government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not 9 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 10

Hamilton v. Moseley

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 21, 2024

second, whether the officer's conduct violated “clearly 17 established law.” … Mohamed is still entitled to qualified 24 immunity as he did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

J.K.J. v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity 9 Officers Durbin and Taub also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity 10 from the claims against them. … “Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil 11 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established 12 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person