Case law

Garcia v. City of El Centro

214 F.R.D. 587 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 24, 2003

Hence, the Court FINDS that those interviews were clearly taken in anticipation of litigation and are protected by the work product rule. … Documents prepared in the regular course of business do not fall under the work product rule and thus are not immune from discovery. Id. at 303 .

Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego

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

Rather, the Court’s 5 decision was based on the absence of case law finding this right to be “clearly 6 established.” … Qualified Immunity 12 Defendants’ final argument on their JMOL motion is that they are entitled to 13 qualified immunity on both the judicial deception and seizure

Tahl v. O'CONNOR

336 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 1971

The test by which this court is to judge the competency of petitioner’s counsel is clearly established. … Again we are confronted with the dilemma of choosing between the differing opinions of two well qualified psychiatrists.

Anderson v. Del Toro

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 26, 2025

Plaintiff’s TAC clearly 18 establishes the federal government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and clearly falls under 19 the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction. … Thus, the Court will not dismiss the TAC merely because Plaintiff 2 has not specifically alleged the basis of jurisdiction or explicitly established waiver of 3 sovereign immunity. See Elton v.

United States Ex Rel. Davis v. Long's Drugs, Inc.

411 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 1, 1976

Howell, 318 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1963), is clearly met here by direct money claims submitted to MediCal, as it was by collusive bidding in the Hess case. … The Tort Claims Act is designed to remove governmental immunity and provide compensation to persons injured by the negligence of the government acting through its officers (see Rayonier v.

Hairston

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 2025

Finally, Defendant claims he is entitled to qualified 23 immunity against Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. (Id. at 6, 12.) Plaintiff filed a Notice 24 of Non-Opposition on May 2, 2025. … The Court declines to address the issue of qualified immunity as it is 8 || unnecessary for purposes of ruling on the Motion. See Simeonov v.

Bonilla v. Samartino

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 22, 2024

Ct. 2604 (2024). 5 “To help staunch a ‘flood of non-meritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison 6 Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) established what has become known as the 7 three-strikes rule. … proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights 28 action.”). 1 Thus, because Bonilla has abused the privilege so often in the past and does not 2 qualify

Valdez v. Zhang

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

Qualified Immunity 17 “Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does … that the official has 24 violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Romero v. Weakley

131 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, S.D. California · May 5, 1955

In substance the contention is that zones and the establishment of boundary lines for schools, the establishment, maintenance, general conduct thereof, and permission to attend them are influenced by things which are constantly … “In 1888, the Visalia board of education established ¿ segregated public school for Negro children exclusively.

Wilborn v. Ashcroft

222 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2002

Absent a showing that plaintiff was qualified for the Department Head position, plaintiff fails to establish a triable issue with respect to a necessary element of his prima facie case. … Plaintiff also fails to establish a triable issue with respect to the second element of his disparate treatment claim, namely, that he was an “otherwise qualified individual.”

United States v. One Residential Property Located at 8110 E. Mohave Road, Paradise Valley

229 F. Supp. 2d 1046 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2002

It is clearly stated in § 983(d)(1) that “[t]he claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner.” However, Thompson failed to present any evidence that he is an “innocent owner.” … not qualify as an innocent purchaser.

Gerth v. United States

132 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 24, 1955

Long, 9 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 842 1 — nevertheless, when jurisdiction exists, Section 2410 constitutes a waiver of immunity by the United States and consent by the United States to be sued in a quiet title action, or for the … Thus, when Section 2463 of Title 28, United States Code, makes such property subject only to the orders and decrees of the “courts of the United States * * *” it is clearly a grant of jurisdiction to the District Courts.

United States v. Stacy

734 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 12, 2010

However, Defendant has not proffered evidence sufficient to establish such a defense. … However, the fact that an individ- . ual may not be prosecuted under California law does not provide him or her with immunity under federal law.

L.J. v. Poway Unified School District

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 2, 2020

(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with 22 Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public … “Section 5278 clearly grants immunity to those individuals authorized to detain a 23 person for a 72-hour hold.” Jacobs v. Grossmont Hosp., 108 Cal.

Stanton v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

37 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 15, 1999

Stanton, Inc., is part and parcel of an overall ERISA-qualifying plan. Secondarily, Defendant asserts that the BOE is by itself an ERISA-qualifying plan. 2 The arguments are taken in reverse order, a. … Randol also involved a situation in which the employer clearly contributed a portion of the premiums for the employee.

Petro v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

95 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 5, 1950

I am of the view that the limitation of liability to “student pilots” was clearly intended to apply to persons who- take their first instructions before they secure any license which entitles them to operate a plane. … Seventy-Eighth Congress, as Amended.” and provides: “This contract made as of this 25th day of June, 1947, between the Veterans Administration and Phipps Flying Service (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor), an institution established

The Estate of Paul Silva v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 16, 2022

The 11 second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question 12 was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656. … Accordingly, 3|| Defendant Murrow’s request for qualified immunity is denied.° 4 Similarly, the failure to supervise is a clearly established right. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1210; Dubner, 266 F.3d at 968.

Sernoffsky v. Novak

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2025

are entitled to 15 qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.”

Newport Pacific Inc. v. County of San Diego

200 F.R.D. 628 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 18, 2001

(b) Work-Product Doctrine The work-product doctrine is a qualified immunity which protects form discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation. … Second, decisions establish the qualified nature of the privilege by requiring courts to balance the need for disclosure against the need for governmental secrecy. Id.

Bonilla v. Ohta

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 6, 2024

Ct. 2604 (2024). 11 “To help staunch a ‘flood of non-meritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison 12 Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) established what has become known as the three- 13 strikes rule … to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights 6 action.”).Thus, because Bonilla has abused the privilege so often in the past and does not 7 qualify for an imminent danger exception, his motion to proceed IFP in this