Case law

Rote v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 30, 2021

To qualify for judicial immunity, a judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). … This allegation does not overcome judicial immunity because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish plausibility. See Fields, 427 F.3d at 1208-09.

Manley v. Bristol

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 6, 2025

It is only injunctive relief which plaintiff seeks against defendants in their official capacities, which is clearly not precluded by the Eleventh Amendment. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. … Laboratory, 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] suit for prospective injunctive relief provides a narrow, but well-established, exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity”) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Noga v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

583 F. Supp. 2d 1245 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 2008

The court noted examples where the “deposition corrections are clearly altered to allege facts sufficient to connect [a defendant] where none before existed.” Id. at 1226 n. 6. … The corrected answers were clearly in conflict with the answers originally given at the deposition, especially as *1253 to those questions to which the plaintiff had answered “I don’t know.”

Fougherouse v. Brownell

163 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 1958

In these latter articles, nothing appears that would remotely establish his membership in the Communist Party, hence they were also irrelevant. … Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Harisiades v.

Garcia Garfias v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2025

The moving party must establish no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must establish a genuine dispute by pointing to evidence outside the pleadings. Id. at 324.

Butler v. Shoemake

173 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2001

Qualification for Disability Benefits Under Standard’s Policy To qualify for benefits under Standard’s LTD policy, Plaintiff must become disabled while insured under the policy. … Plaintiff has not pointed to any clearly erroneous factual findings relied on by Standard.

Booth v. DeVos

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 9, 2024

However, the Supreme Court has held that “the Debt Collection Improvement Act clearly makes Social Security benefits subject to offset.” Id. at 145. … The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it waives its immunity and consents to be sued. FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475.

Conley v. Crabtree

14 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 24, 1998

Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.1997) (“Lorentsen I”), which held that a Bailey motion does not qualify for certification because it is not based upon “newly discovered evidence” or “a new rule of constitutional law,” which … establishes that the application for certification would be futile, as is the case now in many circuits with Bailey claims.

Logan v. West Coast Benson Hotel

981 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 1997

The Ninth Circuit follows the rule that in regards to “the issue of individual liability under Title VII, ... liability runs to qualifying employers’ only and not to individuals.” Sniadoski v. … directly or indirectly, any person or class of person of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.’

Botello v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2020

Gandolfi in entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. 22–24. … Because Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for the above reasons, the Court does not reach qualified immunity.

Parents for Privacy v. Dall. Sch. Dist. No. 2

326 F. Supp. 3d 1075 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 24, 2018

The Ninth Circuit rejected the parole officer's claim for qualified immunity, concluding that the plaintiff had asserted a clearly established right to bodily privacy. Id. … Instead, it concluded that the contours of the right to privacy were not clear and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Bark v. Larsen

423 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2006

The correspondence from these negotiations serves to further establish a specific and significant additional change in the legal relationship between the parties. … Rather, it shows that the first draft of the stipulation contained language that was unsatisfactory to plaintiffs because it did not clearly set out the scope of the withdrawal.

Higuera v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to hire, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants … immunity for Ms.

Al-Khafagi v. Crites

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2024

Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002, 1008 n.3 (9th Cir. 1995) (declining to address qualified immunity where the defendants' brief did not assert the defense); Boudjerada v. … Mar. 26, 2024) (declining to consider qualified immunity where the defendant's motion for summary judgment mentioned qualified immunity in passing but presented no specific arguments).

Committee to Recall Dan Holladay v. Wiley

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2023

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement on the ease of obtaining signatures in a setting not affected by COVID-19 clearly contradicts Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. … More importantly, because sovereign immunity and mootness apply, any amendment to the complaint to cure its deficiencies would be futile.

Lewis v. Federal Aviation Administration

83 F. Supp. 3d 949 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2015

First, the court asks if “the document qualifies under the heading of ‘personnel and medical files and similar files.’ ” Id. (quoting section 552(b)(6)). … constitutes “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6); Forest Serv.

Leonard v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2021

Lastly, in the alternative, Pedro is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this due process claim. C. … In the alternative, Pedro is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Ryder

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2026

Second, it must assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish intentional discrimination on the part of the state officials. Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1998).

Multnomah County v. Rudolph (In Re Rudolph)

166 B.R. 440 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 1994

The court may not set aside findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Bankr.R. 8013. … For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court properly ruled that redemption of the property qualifies as a cure under § 1322(b). IV.

O.M. v. National Women's Soccer League, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2021

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis in original). … Plaintiff is injured by being excluded from the market, competition in the market is injured by the exclusion of otherwise qualified players, and the NWSL and its members have pooled their market power to “in effect, establish