Case law

Linval v. John Does 1-10

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 2024

A qualified immunity defense should be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law”— which Plaintiff’s allegations do not—“a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Seetransport Wiring Trader Schifffarhtsgesellschaft Mbh & Co. v. Navimpex Centrala Navala

793 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 2, 1992

Failure of defendant to raise the question of the effective date of 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(6) cannot establish otherwise nonexistent jurisdiction by estoppel. … This indicates that the action could have been brought at any time up to March 4, 1989, *448 clearly embracing all dates in 1988.

Aryai v. Forfeiture Support Associates, LLC

25 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2012

on the principle of sovereign immunity.” … of sovereign immunity.”

Ross v. United States

574 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 1983

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1976). 2 The Bivens action, thus, is barred by sovereign immunity. 3 The federal government has waived its sovereign immunity to tort suits to the extent in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C … In the context of a government official’s immunity the Supreme Court held that the immunity granted an official in a Bivens suit should be the same as in a § 1983 suit. Butz v.

United States v. Ostrer

481 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 1979

In the instant indictment, the language complained of appears in paragraphs which are clearly denominated as including only “means.” … Although the federal government must grant use immunity to a witness granted immunity in the state courts, it need not grant full transactional immunity. Murphy v.

Newton v. City of New York

566 F. Supp. 2d 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 16, 2008

Although such conduct would be reprehensible, it does not make the prosecutor amenable to a civil suit for damages.’” 107 However, “only qualified immunity applies to law enforcement officials, including prosecutors, when … immunity.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Republic of Palau

693 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 5, 1988

The telex was admitted into evidence for whatever it was worth, and all that is clearly established is that it was written and placed in Palau’s files. … Conclusion Since the Guarantors have established their prima facie case and Palau has failed to establish its affirmative defense of sovereign immunity, misrepresentation, and mistake, the relief sought in the complaint will

Brennan v. City of Middletown

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … In other words, “[w]here the right at issue in the circumstances confronting police officers was clearly established but was violated, the officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable

Fidelity Partners, Inc. v. Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp

921 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 2, 1996

such assets are “immune from execution.” … Although the prior litigation between Phil-guarantee and Fidelity’s predecessor established that “Philguarantee’s assets located in the Philippines are immune from execution,” id. 267 Cal.Rptr. at 481 , the California courts

Weiss v. City University of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the CUNY Board Members, Milliken, Raab and Nord are entitled to qualified immunity because 1) Plaintiff has not established a right … The applicability of qualified immunity is a fact-specific inquiry, and may only be established at the motion to dismiss stage if it is “based on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” Felix v.

Doe v. Harrison

254 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2003

The application for admission, which must be executed within ten days prior to admission, can be submitted by, among others, “the director of the hospital ... in which the patient is hospitalized,” or “a qualified psychiatrist … Doe’s argument fails because both Brentwood Academy and Jensen are clearly distinguishable from the present case.

Weissbrod v. Housing Part of the Civil Court of New York

293 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 23, 2003

Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir.1999) (“It is ... well established that officials acting in a judicial capacity are entitled to absolute immunity against § 1983 actions, and this immunity acts as a complete shield to claims … As to any portions of the Report to which no objections have been made, the Court concludes that the Report is not clearly erroneous. See Pizarro, 776 F.Supp. at 817 .

Adorno v. Correctional Services Corp.

312 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2004

CSC’s Vicarious Liability CSC states that “Correa’s alleged sexual misconduct was clearly outside the scope of his duties as [Resident Advocate] and the alleged conduct clearly did not serve any legitimate business purpose … The third and fourth factors, however, clearly favor CSC.

Cooper v. United States

635 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 30, 1986

Such an action would be brought pursuant to Cooper’s common law right to sue in tort, and since such an action would depend on establishing the postal employee’s negligence, it would comport with the requirements of the FTCA … person” in section 5102(j) of the no-fault law 1 refers to both Cooper, as the pedestrian injured by the motor vehicle, and the United States, as the owner of the vehicle, and therefore argues that the no-fault statute clearly

Desiderio v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

2 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 1998

Lai also is distinguishable in that when the events relevant to the instant action occurred, the NASD arbitration rule in effect clearly covered employment disputes. … United States, 814 F.2d 120, 122 (2d Cir.1987) (finding that the general jurisdictional statute does not waive sovereign immunity); see also Weeks Construction, Inc. v.

Kearney v. County of Rockland

373 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 2005

Defendants also contend that qualified immunity bars all of plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Stormes. (Id. at 23.) First, we will consider whether plaintiff has established a prima facie case. … Because we have determined that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case we need not address defendants' qualified immunity argument with respect to Stormes. 22 .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

544 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 1982

327 The foregoing clearly favors defendant. … At most, the evidence established that Cutrufello was qualified for some of the positions.

Wiggins v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue also that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields prison officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp.

204 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2002

Regis *648 Mohawk Tribe that had waived sovereign immunity in the various agreements that are at the center of this action for inducing breach of contract. … Plaintiffs allege that information developed during the depositions the Court did permit — those of Chiefs Ransom and Smoke, who were clearly officers of the St.

Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2024

immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for Defendants to so believe; (8) any claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are … Moreover, Defendants have raised a qualified immunity defense and discovery should be stayed until such immunity issues are resolved. See Pearson v.