Case law

Anthony

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

The party asserting 21 jurisdiction, here Plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter 22 jurisdiction. Ass’n. of Am. Med. Colls. v. … None of 18 Defendant Sanchez’s submissions qualify as such. The motions to strike are DENIED. 19 C.

Najarro v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 19, 2021

Nevertheless, because “[o]ur precedent does not clearly 19 establish when an officer has a ‘realistic opportunity to intercede,’” Avila is entitled to 20 qualified immunity and Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims against … Code § 52.1). 8 “Claims under section 52.1 may be brought against public officials who are alleged to 9 interfere with protected rights, and qualified immunity is not available for those claims.” 10 Reese v.

Hawkins v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 8, 2022

Second, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified 5 immunity because Plaintiff cannot show they violated any “clearly established right to be 6 free from all COVID-19 exposure and infection.” … for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); County of Sacramento v. 27 Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998) (“[T]he better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised

Oxycal Laboratories, Inc. v. Jeffers

909 F. Supp. 719 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 4, 1995

Even if the general purpose of the Book is not to promote a commercial transaction, it is possible that the Book contains speech which qualifies as commercial. … Since Oxyeal has not even established a fair chance of success on the merits, they fail under the second formulation of the test as well. Oxyeal argues that Clark’s Book is clearly commercial speech for several reasons.

Airtouch Cellular v. City of El Cajon

83 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 10, 2000

See Célico, 3 F.Suppüd at 185 (“unequal treatment is generally established when a commission grants a competitor’s application and denies a plaintiffs application”). … To plead a substantive due process violation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions were “ ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general

Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Group, Inc.

270 F.R.D. 596 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2010

DTG doesn’t question whether Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel, and it’s obvious that they are. … To the contrary, it’s quite clearly DTG’s position that they received the same amount of supervision — none—and that it’s possible to reach this conclusion by considering common proof.

Kelly v. J.A.W. Land & Trading LLC

499 B.R. 844 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 17, 2013

Additionally, JAW refutes the Kellys’ contention that JAW did not meet its burden of proof for establishing damages. … [investor] would attach importance to the alleged omissions in determining his course of action,” such concealed facts qualify as material.

Rebeca Brinkly Ward v. C & J Legacy Residential, LLC; Adam Peron; and Pad Properties Group, L.P., d/b/a West Star Properties

District Court, S.D. California · May 15, 2026

Disparate Impact 13 In contrast to disparate treatment, “[t]o establish a prima facie disparate impact case, 14 a plaintiff must establish at least that the defendant’s actions … While Plaintiff alleges several facts 17 suggesting she was subject to discrimination by Defendants, she does not clearly allege the 18 ways in which she attempted to oppose Defendants’ discriminatory practices

Reyes v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 16, 2021

and has not waived its immunity pursuant to the FTCA.”). … A 10 plaintiff may establish he was discriminated against “by reason of” his disability pursuant 11 to the ADA by establishing his disability was a “motivating factor” in the official’s decision 12 to exclude the plaintiff

United States v. Olave-Valencia

371 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, S.D. California · May 18, 2005

Section 1903 on its face clearly demonstrates that the safety valve applies because convictions under this section must be punished in accordance with § 960. … Indeed, the legislative history here confirms that Congress clearly intended § 1903 to be sentenced the same as § 955.

Marsh v. County of San Diego

771 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 11, 2011

Legal Standard 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States … And another protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” § 552(b)(6).

Ethridge v. Perales

District Court, S.D. California · May 5, 2023

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must 21 show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 22 States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under … is available). 19 However, a parole officers’ immunity arising from their duty to supervise or enforce the 20 conditions of parole is qualified as “[a]bsolute immunity does not extend [ ] to Plaintiff's 21 claim

Patrick v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Employee Benefits Organization Income Protection Plan

638 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 13, 2009

Henderson in which he found that she was disabled were not sufficient to establish her disability. … if it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.

Castillo v. Renteria

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity. 12 As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Renteria and Romero are entitled to 13 qualified immunity because there were no Eighth Amendment violations … Moreover, 14 even if one were to assume an Eighth Amendment violation, Renteria (and therefore 15 Romero) are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because no court has held that the 16 minimal touching Plaintiff

Ochoa v. Von Lintig

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

immunity. 95 || See Doc. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); 27 County of Sacramento

Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. State Board of Equalization

13 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 11, 1935

The plaintiffs are foreign corporations qualified to do business in California, and engaged in the manufacture and sale of alcoholic malt beverages in many states of the United States. … Legality does not give immunity. That is true of any business; truer of a business which has required so much regulation as the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Adame

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

of opinion where existing authority points clearly in one 15 direction.” … to that immunity would have been lost. 6 || See Taylor v.

Johns v. Bayer Corp.

280 F.R.D. 551 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 3, 2012

Here, it clearly would be difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the proposed class. … Likewise, under the CLRA, "[c]ausation on a class-wide basis may be established by materiality.” Steams, 655 F.3d at 1022 (quoting In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116, 129 , 103 Cal. Rptr.3d 83 (2009)).

United States v. Saldivar-Vargas

273 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 7, 2003

Clearly, as a matter of statutory interpretation, § 321(a) applies retroactively. … Many felonies in addition to crimes of violence qualify as aggravated felonies.

Dean v. Appelate Defenders

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 2025

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“Like other forms of official immunity, 7 judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of 8 damages.”); Moore v. … Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.1986) 15 (en banc) (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of 16 a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity