Case law

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 19 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 20 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 21 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 4 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 5 requirement).

Arya v. Calpers

943 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, C.D. California · May 2, 2013

Based upon his factual allegations, plaintiff here is clearly asserting a disparate treatment claim. … Since there is no constitutional authority for abrogation of state sovereign immunity with respect to negligence and breach of contract claims, this court lacks jurisdiction over any such claims if defendant CalPERS qualifies

Alexander v. Scripps Mem'l Hosp. La Jolla

232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Apr 16, 2018

Ritt were immune from liability under the Probate Code; and Plaintiffs could not establish negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. … Immunities by their nature shield qualified parties from liability for legal violations.

Bravo Ex Rel. Ramirez v. Hsu

404 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2005

Public officials such as Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” P.B. v. … If sufficient evidence is presented at summary judgment to make out a constitutional violation, the school officials still are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right they violated was not clearly established

People v. Singleton

182 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2010

On this matter, the high court held that once the defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, the prosecuting authorities “ ‘have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted.’ ” (Kastigar … This court may find error only if the witness ‘ “clearly lacks qualification as an expert.” ’ [Citation.]

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 18 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 19 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 20 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 2 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 3 requirement).

Malloy v. Fong

37 Cal. 2d 356 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1951

It was therefore left without effective supervision and without an instructor qualified to conduct the Bible classes. … The evidence clearly supports the conclusion of the jury that such control existed in the present case.

People v. Housman

163 Cal. App. 3d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1984

Not more than three (3) permits shall be issued for each qualified dwelling unit to any qualified applicant. … Clearly the cultural and educational rewards of international travel ( Kent v.

Milligan v. City of Laguna Beach

34 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1983

Section 831.2 is part of the Tort Claims Act of 1963 (§§ 810-996.6), which established governmental liability and immunity for tortious acts. … The “possible explanation” militates in favor of liability—not immunity—because the basic rule is that “unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties

Williams v. Vidmar

367 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 28, 2005

and if so, then determine “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied. F.

Mayer v. Willing

196 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1961

It is not alleged that either Horace or Minnie was qualified as guardian in this state. … Solely with respect to the disability of foreign representatives to bring an action, certain exceptions, none of which is applicable here, have been established.

Toney v. State of California

54 Cal. App. 3d 779 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1976

Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.” In Johnson v. … It is established that the privilege is lost upon a showing of “actual malice” on the part of the person publishing the alleged defamatory material. (Kapellas v.

Yong Shao Ma v. City & County of San Francisco

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2002

To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. … That came in 1989 when an unsuccessful Senate bill sought to change the qualified immunity to absolute immunity. (See Sen. Bill No. 762, introduced Mar. 1, 1989 (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 762 (1989-1990 Reg.

Alford v. Humboldt County

785 F. Supp. 2d 867 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 2011

“Since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct,” qualified immunity does not apply when the relevant law is clearly established. Harlow v. … “In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other

Cory v. Shierloh

29 Cal. 3d 430 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1981

Expressing a single exception to the foregoing sweeping immunity, the Legislature in section 25602.1 of the Business and Professions Code, added the following qualifying language: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section … It is well settled that the Legislature possesses a broad authority both to establish and to abolish tort causes of action.

City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments

214 Cal. App. 4th 358 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 2013

Cross-defendants Failed to Establish Prosecutorial Immunity The City and Lee also claim prosecutorial immunity. … Cross-defendants Failed to Establish Immunity for Misrepresentations Finally, the City and Lee cite governmental immunities for “misrepresentations.”

Gibson v. County of Riverside

181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 4, 2002

Unlike sections 818.2 and 821, which provide an absolute immunity, sections 820.4 and 820.6 provide a qualified immunity available in many circumstances but unavailable where the defendant public employee failed to use due … As the Court's analysis will make clear, sections 51 and 52 of the Unruh Act, when read together, clearly make such conduct actionable even though the individual or entity denying others access to a "business establishment

Hall v. City of Los Angeles

710 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2010

The qualified immunity analysis entails a two-step inquiry: first, the Court must decide whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional right; second, if so, the Court must decide whether the law was clearly established … The Court agrees that such a right was clearly established at that time.

Verdugo v. Target Corp.

59 Cal. 4th 312 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2014

That statement was clearly dictum inasmuch as the defendant in Rotolo had voluntarily acquired and installed an AED. … The statutory provisions and related regulations establishing the prerequisites to civil immunity for those entities acquiring an AED reflect the numerous related requirements that a jury is likely to view as reasonably necessary

Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

184 Cal. 26 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1920

The theory of territorial sovereignty has been too long established as a principle of international law to admit of question at this time. … Its sole purpose was to declare to the several states that whatever rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more