Case law

Battensby v. Zhang

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 28, 2020

[is] insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference,’” 19 Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jackson v. … App’x 500, 505 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding qualified immunity is unavailable 25 for prison medical personnel where reasonable jury could conclude treatment was denied 26 or delayed for non-medical reasons).

Parker v. Manzano

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2024

Plaintiff’s claim is clearly based 13 on the theory that requiring him to provide documentation where his firearms have been 14 relocated without providing the policy or regulation authorizing that documentation, is an … immunity.

Doe v. Hebbard

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 8, 2021

“If the exception applies, 28 immunity is reinstated.” Id. … What it does mean is that a plaintiff may not invoke federal jurisdiction by pleading matters that clearly fall within the exceptions of 17

Kennedy v. LOS ANGELES JOINT EXEC. BD. OF HOTEL & R. EMP.

192 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 27, 1961

The courts have uniformly held that all that this requires is the prima facie establishment of facts from which an inference might be drawn that the charge is true. … The picket signs charged, in substance, that the subcontractor was not performing his work with qualified craftsmen or paying prevailing wages.

Heizelman v. Chase Bank

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 9, 2023

) is 6 subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is “frivolous, or 7 malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary 8 relief against a defendant immune … “It is to be presumed that a 14 cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary 15 rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.

Gonzalez v. Guzman

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 4, 2019

11 immunity. … immunity.

Phipps v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 4, 2023

Derivative Sovereign Immunity 19 Next, Defendants argue they are entitled to derivative sovereign immunity from 20 Plaintiff’s claims. … Code § 3294(c)(3). 27 Here, Plaintiff clearly pleads facts to support her request for punitive damages. 28 (Compl. ¶¶24-26.)

Edwards

District Court, S.D. California · May 7, 2026

Pre-screening means that the Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP 13 complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks 14 damages from defendants who are immune. … Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), the Supreme Court held 18 that municipalities and other local government units qualify as “persons,” and are therefore 19 subject to lawsuits, under § 1983.

Vargas v. State of California

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 3, 2024

9 As a preliminary matter, Municipal Defendants move to dismiss any direct claims 10 under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against them as barred by Eleventh 11 Amendment immunity … Qualified Individual with Disability 24 Municipal Defendants argue Plaintiffs fail to allege Decedent’s HCD substantially 25 limited any major life activity as required for a qualified disability

Bryant v. Armstrong

285 F.R.D. 596 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 14, 2012

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information, such as information in government personnel files. Kerr, 511 F.2d at 197-98 . … Moreover, the yard assignment records are clearly relevant to Bryant’s retaliation claim.

Tool Research & Engineering Corp. v. Honcor Corp.

240 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 11, 1964

established, should be full, unequivocal, and convincing.” … Foster had said that before the core could be fully qualified for acceptance by Convair it had to go through the “brazed panel test” (R. 1547, line 21, to line 17, 1548).

In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1079 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. … Generally, there are two elements to establish standing to bring a parens patriae claim.

Dumas v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.

52 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 1999

Clearly, those are not the facts in the instant matter. … Little indicates that § 319.3 was enacted to render all other possible uses of sports trading cards immune from liability.

Citizens for Honesty & Integrity in Regional Planning v. County of San Diego

258 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 15, 2003

Clearly, the RPO definition of “wetland” is far broader than the definition found in Swampbuster. Therein lies the dispute between the parties to this litigation. Plaintiff Karl A. … As noted previously, to qualify as “wetland” under Swampbuster, property must possess three components: (1) hydric soils, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydrophytic vegetation. See 16 U.S.C. § 3801 (a)(18).

United States v. Kellogg

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 24, 2025

Thus, by Plaintiff’s own allegations, such a prohibition 10 was clearly and publicly available prior to the filing of the complaint. 11 When “X” and “Y” are combined, the conclusion that fraud has been committed … Relator bears the burden of 5 establishing that it qualifies as an original source. United Statesex re. Solis v. Millennium 6 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 445 F.Supp.3d 786, 795 (9th Cir. 2020)(citations omitted).

Prescott v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego

265 F. Supp. 3d 1090 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 2017

(“Government Code section 11139 demonstrates that when the Legislature wanted to limit the remedies available in' a private enforcement to equitable or injunctive relief, it clearly knew how to do so.”). … To satisfy this standing requirement, the California Supreme Court requires a plaintiff to “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e. economic injury, and (2) show

Benhoff v. Sherman

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 6, 2020

For a Section 2254 habeas petition to prevail, the state court 22 adjudication must be (1) “contrary to,” or an “unreasonable application of,” clearly 23 established federal law, or (2) decided based on “an unreasonable … The lower courts did not contravene or 2 unreasonably apply any clearly established federal law because there is no right to a law 3 library access or “hybrid” representation—a discretion is not a mandate.

Barton v. Harker

District Court, S.D. California · May 8, 2023

The Court 14 || granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the prima facie elements of a 15 || discrimination claim needed to be established at the pleading stage. /d. at 510. … Plaintiff 22 lists sixteen instances of allegedly discriminatory behavior which clearly gives Defendant 23 notice of the basis for Plaintiff's claims.

Riley v. Vizcarra

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2020

Defendant Vizcarra also contends that 12 even if he violated the Eighth Amendment during that incident he is entitled to qualified 13 immunity because no clearly established law exists to place him on notice that his … He argues qualified immunity is inappropriate because the unconstitutionality 20 of Defendant Vizcarra’s conduct is apparent.

North v. Salazar

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 2025

Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a 11 prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion thereof, found frivolous, malicious, failing to state 12 a claim, or seeking damages from defendants who are immune … Casey, 518 U.S. 26 343, 351 (1996) (holding that because inmates lack “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, and inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury by establishing that his