Case law

Amaral v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 31, 2021

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 4 The Court will start with the “clearly established” prong. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 5 236; Wesby, 138 S. … Given the above undisputed material facts, supra, the Court finds Williams is 6 entitled to qualified immunity.

Petition of Oganesoff

20 F.2d 978 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 23, 1927

The authorities all agree that the burden is upon the petitioner for naturalization to establish by competent proof that he has fully met the requirements of the statute. … action under the naturalization laws clearly was the inducing cause for the reprehensible conduct of this alien.

N.M.

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity & Absolute Privilege 4 Next, Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified 5 immunity. Doc. No. 17-1 at 16–17. … “When, as here, defendants 13 assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is not 14 appropriate unless we can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity 15

Jones v. Del Toro

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 14, 2025

. § 2000e-16, the 14 portion of Title VII that applies to federal employees, is the relevant waiver of sovereign 15 immunity and therefore jurisdictional. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) … “[P]rocedural rules, including time bars, cabin a 19 court’s power only if Congress has ‘clearly state[d]’ as much.” United States v. Wong, 20 575 U.S. 402, 209 (2015) (quoting Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med.

Bouman v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity as to Federal Claims (Claims 1– 21 7) 22 The doctrine of “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from … Thus, when evaluating claims of 4 qualified immunity, courts consider: “(1) whether there has been a violation of a 5 constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of 6 the officer's

O'Brien v. Murphy

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 24, 2020

from civil damages pursuant to qualified immunity and that 22 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was moot because he had been transferred to 23 another facility. … right was ‘clearly 10 ||established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Fitzgerald v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 15, 2021

Qualified Immunity 5 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for 6 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged 12 misconduct.

San Diego Unified Port District v. Gianturco

457 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 30, 1978

Despite the general immunity conferred by the Eleventh Amendment, however, its protective shield is not absolute. … In a footnote, the Supreme Court rejected the state defendants’ claim of immunity under the Eleventh Amendment: The state defendants challenged the District Court’s jurisdiction over them, asserting sovereign immunity under

Klat

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2025

Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be 15 protected only by qualified immunity.” (Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted).) … Moore, 96 F.3d at 1244 (“Nor is judicial immunity lost by allegations that a 18 judge conspired with one party to rule against another party. . . .”). 19 The Court finds that quasi-judicial immunity establishes

Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Nelson

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 24, 2020

It is also well-established that the burden of overcoming sovereign 22 immunity lies with the party bringing suit against a sovereign. … The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not. 5 In its opposition to the United States’ motion, Plaintiff offers two statutory grounds 6 for establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Declaratory Judgment Act

McKee & Company v. First National Bank of San Diego

265 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 1967

The bylaws in question clearly are not inconsistent with any federal or state law, and a reading of them raises no question of patent unreasonableness. … In establishing minimum requirements for all national banks, 12 U.S.C. § 72 actually affirms that resi *7 dence is a relevant and important factor. In Concord First National Bank v.

Pirouzian v. SLM Corp.

396 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 30, 2005

“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … The interpretation further explains that “the Secretary clearly intended [ 34 C.F.R. § 682.411 ] to establish a uniform national minimum level of collection activity, and therefore to preempt any State rule that would hinder

Estate of Matthew Settles, by and through its successor in interest Brenda Settles, and Brenda Settles v. County of San Diego, et al.

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity 24 Defendants Cruz, Medenwald-Hogg, Ross, Balingit, Ortiz, and Boyd assert a 25 qualified immunity defense against Plaintiffs’ first and second … [See SAC ¶ 114 (“As a psychiatric nurse practitioner, 12 [Defendant Balingit] was also aware that the medical literature and caselaw clearly 13 established that placement of seriously mentally ill inmates

Desert Beach Corporation v. United States

128 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 7, 1955

If it could be summarily established or if it were admitted that, in fact, the United States had no part in the maintenance and operation of the canals, it might be proper to present such matter by way of a motion for summary … An analysis of these cases indicates that the immunity found there was based on the fact that the acts of the Government were within the “discretionary function” exemption.

Rivera Anaya v. United States

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

But Anaya fails to clearly identify what specific California tort(s) provide 2 the basis for his claim. … App’x 366 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Universal Declaration 21 of Human Rights . . . cannot establish customary international law on its own because it is 22 merely aspirational.”).

United States v. Reynard

220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 26, 2002

Robbery is a qualifying offense. 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(l)(E). … qualifying conviction occurred.

DeMarco v. DepoTech Corp.

149 F. Supp. 2d 1212 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 26, 2001

Q at 36.) 7 Defendants clearly had a rea *1225 sonable basis for their optimistic statements concerning DepoCyt’s efficacy, quality of life and economic benefits. … Specifically, 22 of 31 DepoCyt patients qualified as evaluable, while 29 of 30 MTX patients qualified as evaluable. (Id. at 20.)

Metal Lite, Inc. v. Brady Construction Innovations, Inc.

558 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 25, 2007

However, when read in context, “from this day forward” clearly refers to the date of issuance of the '462 patent. … Because the Court finds that Metal Lite cannot allege plausible facts to establish an exception to patent immunity from the antitrust laws, the Court does not reach Brady’s argument regarding the sufficiency of Metal Lite

Shakur v. Gibson

District Court, S.D. California · May 16, 2023

immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been 19 violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries 20 concerning qualified immunity.”).

Royce v. Bonta

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 17, 2025

, or qualifies for other 17 exemptions recognized by statute. … Exemption for Students Who Qualify for IEPs Is Not 22 Comparable to a Religious Exemption 23 California’s immunization requirements “do[] not prohibit a pupil who qualifies