Case law

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 2010

With respect to NCG’s third argument, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that qualified immunity is not available to private entities. … NCG has not provided any authority demonstrating that qualified immunity is available under California law for state-law claims.

Rupe v. Cate

688 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity and so Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims should be dismissed. … Because the Complaint does not clearly show that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court will not entertain that defense now, but Defendants may renew it on any motion for summary judgment. III.

Huling v. City of Los Banos

869 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2012

. (3) Was the Right Asserted Clearly Established? … clearly established.

Koistra v. Cnty. of San Diego

310 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant Vail asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies to him. Plaintiff opposes. … Mendoza , 27 F.3d at 1361 (affirming district court's denial of qualified immunity where law was clearly established, but officer's conduct was not objectively reasonable).

Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park

159 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages” unless a plaintiff demonstrates “(1) that the official violated a,... constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Nonetheless, the Court grants the Defendant officers qualified immunity on the narrow ground that it was not clearly established that the Randolph rule applies in the context of probation searches.

Orozco v. County of Yolo

814 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 1993

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or if the officers could reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful … Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that the conduct at issue was reasonable in light of the clearly established

Jack v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity 18 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 3 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Butler v. Woods

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Finally, the defendants argue that Bellas and Woods are protected by qualified immunity. … Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 447 (Sth Cir. 2011) (analyzing, as part of qualified immunity, whether the defendant’s “failure to promulgate [a] policy was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”).

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

Nunes v. Stephens

District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021

Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity. 1 On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that reversed this Court’s 2 denial of qualified immunity. See Nunes v. … Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified

(PS) Ward v. Upshaw

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2025

However, this court need not decide that 3 question because it is apparent that the officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 There was, at the time of plaintiff’s detention, no “clearly established” First … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 13 7 (2015) (a right is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes unless existing 8 precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue).

Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2022

Immunity 3 “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not 4 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … S. 223 (2009)(holding 6 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their entry did not violate clearly 7

Doubleday v. Ruh

93 Daily Journal DAR 9706 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1993

As clearly held by In Re California Public Utilities Com’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1989), the work product immunity cannot be claimed by one who would ordinarily hold the right to assert the immunity 5 unless that person … Assertion of work product is not assertion of a privilege, but rather assertion of a qualified immunity. Admiral Ins v. U.S.D.C. (Ariz.), 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989).

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

The Estate of Dominique McCoy v. County of San Diego

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

19 For qualified immunity, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not identified a 20 clearly established constitutional right. … clearly 4 established federal law.”); Borja v.

Sanchez v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

The Court agrees with Defendants that there is no clearly established law and thus 4 Allbee is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the “clearly established” standard applies to federal 5 qualified immunity; under California’s Bane Act, the “clearly delineated” standard 6 governs, which is different.

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

clearly established statutory or 7 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the law 21 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 22 based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

(PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020

Legal Standards 3 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 4 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 16 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” 17 prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

Bell v. Lee

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2024

They also argue that Gatmen and Herron are entitled to qualified immunity 16 because they carried Bell at the direction of Lieutenant Krol. … Cnty. of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (clearly established right to be free 7 || of excessive force encompasses “well-established” right to be free of overly tight handcuffs) (citing 8 Meredith

J.M. v. Parlier Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 15 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 27 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).