Skoog v. County of Clackamas

8 Citing briefs

  1. Chavez v. City of Oakland et al

    Memorandum in Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to 18 Defendant Officers Kevin Reynolds and Cesar Garcia's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Grounds of Qualified Immunity

    Filed April 17, 2009

    Finally, pursuant to Skoog, it is now clearly established in the Ninth Circuit that “a right exists to be free of police action for which retaliation is a but-for cause even if probable cause exists for that action.” Skoog, 469 F.3d at 1235. Thus, even if the officers reasonably believed that they had6/ probable cause to arrest plaintiff, disputed issues of fact as to retaliation preclude summary judgment Case3:08-cv-04015-CRB Document23 Filed04/17/09 Page16 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants also have another section of their Memorandum seeking summary judgment under7/ California Civil Code § 52.

  2. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 8, 2014

    Because BART did not apply the law uniformly to journalists, it cannot claim qualified immunity. See Skoog, surpa, 469 F.3d at 1235. C. Issues of Probable Cause Support the False Arrest Claim As defendants admit, Hartwig may be held liable for a false arrest claim if he failed to possess probable cause, or if he failed to act reasonably in ordering Morse’s arrest.

  3. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication, MPA

    Filed December 23, 2013

    The Ninth and Tenth Circuits disagreed. Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F. 3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006); Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F. 3d 1131, 1147-1148 (rev'd and remanded sub nom. Reichle, supra).

  4. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Relating to Probable Cause for Plaintiff's Arrest

    Filed August 28, 2014

    III. LEGAL ANALYSIS To establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence must enable a plaintiff ultimately to prove that the officer’s desire to chill his speech was a but-for cause of the officer’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

  5. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Reference to BART Reports or Policies and Procedures

    Filed August 28, 2014

    III. LEGAL ANALYSIS To establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence 2 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 C12-5289 JSC (DMR) 19263.

  6. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Reference to Other Lawsuits or Alleged BART-Related Use of Force Incidents

    Filed August 28, 2014

    1 Case3:12-cv-05289-JSC Document85 Filed08/28/14 Page2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A LL E N , G LA E S S N E R , H A ZE LW O O D & W E R TH , L LP 1 8 0 M o n tg o m e ry S tr e e t, S u it e 1 2 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C a li fo rn ia 9 4 1 0 4 demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence must enable a plaintiff ultimately to prove that the officer’s desire to chill his speech was a but-for cause of the officer’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

  7. Fikre v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

    Memorandum in Support .

    Filed August 8, 2014

    ......................................... 20 Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 17 Perez v. Nidek Co., Ltd., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 13 Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ 31 Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984) .................................................................................................... 13, 14 Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................... 16, 26 Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) .................................................................................................... 29, 31 Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 31 Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) .......................................................................................................... 20

  8. United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed June 22, 2012

    Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 2006). As discussed above, a complaint’s factual allegations need only “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.