Case law

Johnson v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 14, 2020

Ct. at 743. 26 Qualified immunity nonetheless “protects government officials ‘from liability for 27 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 16 |/entitled to qualified immunity. 17 IV.

Soler v. San Diego, County of

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

No. 203 at 8-9.2 Moreover, Banuelos is 13 not entitled to qualified immunity from suit with respect to Soler’s Fourteenth 14 Amendment claim. See id. … Because it has been established that the Governor’s Warrant for Soler’s arrest 21 was facially valid, Banuelos contends he is entitled to immunity from suit.4 22

Kaufman v. General Insurance Company of America

192 F. Supp. 238 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 20, 1961

Defendant is also qualified, licensed to engage in, and engaging in the general insurance business in the State of California with offices in Los Angeles County. … This argument, of the two grounds for remand urged by plaintiffs, is clearly nearer to being a substantial contention.

Masterson Marketing, Inc. v. KSL Recreation Corp.

495 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 13, 2007

Although plaintiff believes this note “clearly” shows the infringing use of his images caused defendants’ increased profits, it does not. … As defendants correctly note, plaintiff has not been qualified as an expert in marketing and/or damages, in this case, profits attributable to alleged infringement.

United States v. Baumgartner

259 F. 722 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 8, 1919

the man power and increase its efficiency by a denial of intoxicants which would have a detrimental effect, and to conserve the foodstuffs and food resources of the nation, as a part of the necessary war program, would clearly … It is both necessary and permissible here to use two well-established rules of statutory construction.

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. Unite Here Int'l Union

346 F. Supp. 3d 1365 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 28, 2018

Pauma does not meets its "burden of establishing the contrary." See id. The Court consequently GRANTS the Union's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. … . § 2710 (d)(7) does not allow a suit against a state unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.

Bell v. Hood

71 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, S.D. California · May 2, 1947

The immunity of the Federal Government from suit extends to all federal officers and agents acting within the scope of their duties as such. Kendall v. … Thus long-established precedent holds there is ground for equitable relief when a federal officer threatens to exceed his authority.

Karpe v. Chao

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 2020

Plaintiff was 2 informed that these two positions were “Good Time” positions, and thus qualified for 3 credits toward early retirement. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 20–21). … or does not qualify for early 27 retirement benefits.”

Golden v. Kipperman

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 2020

The 15 party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. Kokkonen v. 16 Guardian Life Ins. … To qualify for quasi-judicial immunity, the trustee must establish: 11 “(1) their acts were within the scope of their authority; (2) the debtor had notice of their 12 proposed acts; (3) they candidly disclosed their proposed

Mori

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 19, 2026

“The FTCA, in turn, waives [the 23 United States’] sovereign immunity.” Id. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields 24 the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. … Notably, the FTCA “qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain 26 categories of claims.” Dolan, 546 U.S. at 485. “If one of the exceptions applies, the bar 27 of sovereign immunity remains.”

United States v. Inzunza

303 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 5, 2004

Clearly, Title III cannot override a constitutional right. See In re New York Times, 828 F.2d 110, 115 (2d Cir.1987). … Until a suppression hearing is held, or until their admissibility is otherwise established, the Court feels that the privacy interests of the defendants (who let us remember are presumed innocent) and the goal of Title III

Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA)

844 F. Supp. 2d 1099 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2012

Similarly, Plaintiffs allegation that he would like to refinance his loan under the “Federal Home Affordable Refinance Program” provides no indication whether his loan qualifies for the program. … While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs circumstances, the pending motion for a TRO does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief.

Gallo v. Board of Regents of the University of California

916 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 22, 1995

Defendants’ exhibits clearly establish that the charge upon which plaintiff was issued a right-to-sue letter was filed later than the required 300 days. Plaintiff does not contest that evidence. … Further, such damages would clearly be available under the federal claims asserted. The Court denies the second basis for the motion to strike.

Hunter v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance

671 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 3, 2009

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 . … The termination provision here clearly states that a secondary insured’s coverage is terminated “on the date the individual ceases to qualify” as a secondary insured. (Policy, at 8.)

Alegre v. Contreras

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 12, 2020

The Enrollment 16 Committee unanimously voted that Plaintiffs had established they were qualified for 17 enrollment. (Id.) … But here, Plaintiffs are clearly seeking monetary relief 21 in their Fifth Amendment equal protection claim.

McCullock v. Brown

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 3, 2020

Merits and Qualified Immunity 24 Plaintiff does not object to any conclusion of the Report and Recommendation 25 related to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. … immunity.

Gutierrez v. Givens

1 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 3, 1998

Therefore, under this view, Colonial clearly purposefully availed itself of California jurisdiction. … Resulting income was likely invested in the bank’s operations, which clearly qualify as affecting interstate commerce.

In re Outlaw Labs., LP Litig.

352 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 27, 2018

In PRE II , the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether a given litigation was a sham. … Clearly this inquiry is a factual one, rarely if ever susceptible to determination on demurrer. 8 CrossTalk Prods. , 65 Cal. App. 4th at 644 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 .

Riess v. Dalton

845 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 17, 1993

First, Congress has clearly chosen to address illegal discrimination and wrongful retaliation separately and in distinct statutory sections. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has failed to establish any legal grounds in support of his motion.

Bishop v. United States Postal Service

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

“The FTCA, in turn, 5 waives sovereign immunity in two different sections of the United States Code.” … Id. 6 However, “[t]he FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain categories of 7 claims (13 in all).” Id. at 485. “If one of the exceptions applies, the bar of sovereign 8 immunity remains.”