Case law

WITT v. CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2024

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

THE ESTATE OF JIMMY LEE TESTA v. FALLICK

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 2023

Second, the Court must consider “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis because Defendants may indeed have violated a clearly established constitutional right if the jury concludes that Testa did not pose an immediate threat to them.

Mosca v. Cole

384 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2005

applicant instead of a qualified white male applicant.” … When a white employee asserts that his employment was terminated based on a discriminatory animus, the McDonnell Douglas test for establishing a prima facie cases has three requirements: (i) plaintiff was qualified for the

CATALANO v. CITY OF TRENTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2019

Thus, qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). … “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.”

United States v. Vigoa

656 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 1987

The government goes on to argue that Rodriguez’s immunity agreement with the government was contingent on his being truthful, such that Rodriguez had every incentive to be truthful. … In this case Orestes Rodriguez is clearly unavailable and the government gave timely notice of its intention to move for admission of his grand jury testimony. 4 .

WHY ASAP, LLC v. Compact Power

461 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 13, 2006

Lawsuits are ordinarily protected activity under Noerr-Pennington, but the Supreme Court has established a “sham exception.” See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. … A lawsuit “does not qualify for ... immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover ... an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’ ” Id. (quoting Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v.

TORO v. ASAO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 25, 2022

In moving to dismiss based on qualified immunity, it appears that Defendants assumed that they would succeed on the first prong and did not argue, in the alternative, as to whether Defendant Ortiz violated a clearly established … a clearly established right.

THE ESTATE OF ULISSES M. RODRIGUEZ v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2019

Denial of Medical Treatment: Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Despite their reliance on only the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, Defendants do not discuss any law dealing with medical training for corrections officers, drug overdoses, or other similar issues.

Signorile v. City of Perth Amboy

523 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2007

In addition, Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Signorile’s claims. … To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that someone acted under the color of state law and deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C

REARDON v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2020

Finally, qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Plaintiff makes no allegations that Defendant Simon’s alleged actions, even accepted as true, “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

BURGA v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2020

The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right was so clearly established that the officers should have known that they were committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances. … Here the right was not clearly established.

BROWN v. HADDON TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

CREAMER v. LYNCH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 2021

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “clearly established” at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct.

Weissman v. United States Postal Service

19 F. Supp. 2d 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 1998

Defendant argues that it is immune from the present action under § 6332(e). … Furthermore, the equities clearly weigh in favor of the defendant and against forfeiture. This is not a ease where the tenant is either unwilling or unable to pay rent.

Hassoun v. Cimmino

126 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2000

The Supreme Court has held that personal immunity defenses, such as absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity as invoked here, are unavailable to defendants in § 1983 official-capacity actions. … Thus, the Court need not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether absolute prosecu-torial immunity, firmly established in the criminal context, extends to prosecutors who institute civil consumer fraud proceedings. 18 .

GOODE v. CAMDEN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2019

Clearly Established Right Although Pierce engaged in activity the First Amendment protects, Miles retains qualified immunity for any retaliation unless such protection was clearly established … Stroup as holding that “where the Pickering balancing factors weigh heavily in favor of the employee, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.” 413 F.3d at 366.

Green v. Green

899 F. Supp. 2d 291 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2012

It clearly states that Mrs. Green, as the alternate payee, is to receive 47.5 percent of Plaintiffs monthly pension payments. … In addition, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution as he has not established that the underlying civil action terminated in his favor.

HARRISON v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defense to Various Claims and Defendants Defendants argue the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

SANCHEZ v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2022

Notwithstanding the above, the Elizabeth BOE Defendants argue that Planitiffs cannot show that Defendant Troiano violated a clearly established law – the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 293 (3d Cir. 2006), a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

ALEXANDER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2026

Defendants Magenheimer and Barrera argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. (D.E. 180-3 at 50.) … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person