Karam v. City of Burbank

236 Citing cases

  1. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim

    747 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 446 times
    Noting that "speculation as to . . . improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment" (quoting Karem v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003))

    The plaintiffs produced no evidence that the officers had any ulterior motives for using force against Gonzalez, and the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that “speculation as to ... improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment”). III.

  2. Gibson v. Office of Attorney General

    554 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying fees where plaintiff raised a question of first impression as an application of the ordinary standard that " case may be deemed frivolous only when the 'result is obvious or the . . . arguments of error are wholly without merit'" (quoting Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2003))

    "A case may be deemed frivolous only when the `result is obvious or the ... arguments of error are wholly without merit.'" Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.1981)). A losing § 1983 claim is without merit only if it is "groundless or without foundation."

  3. Wright v. S. Ariz. Children's Advocacy Ctr.

    No. CV-21-00257-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz. Sep. 24, 2024)

    Summary judgment is also appropriate where there is no evidence to establish that a defendant was aware of the protected speech. Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Karam v. Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2001)).

  4. Santana v. Cnty. of Yuba

    No. 2:15-cv-00794 KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016)   Cited 5 times

    It goes without saying that an unreasonable search or seizure is an element of any § 1983 claim for violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003).

  5. C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.

    784 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 45 times

    Applying the Christiansburg frivolousness standard, we have held that “[a] case may be deemed frivolous only when the result is obvious or the ... arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, when there is very little case law on point and a claim raises a novel question, the claim is much less likely to be considered frivolous.

  6. Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.

    CASE NO. C20-5224JLR (W.D. Wash. Jun. 25, 2021)

    A case is “less likely to be considered frivolous when there is ‘very little case law directly apposite.'” Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting In 'tl Bhd. of Teamsters v. Silver State Disposal Serv., Inc., 109 F.3d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir. 1997)). Courts have largely declined to award fees when qualified immunity had been granted.

  7. Santana v. Cnty. of Yuba

    No. 2:15-cv-00794-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2016)

    It goes without saying that an unreasonable search or seizure is an element of any § 1983 claim for violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003).

  8. Denney v. Drug Enforcement Admin.

    NO. CIV. S-06-1711 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008)

    Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that defendants had knowledge of his protected speech under Keyser and Karam. See Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment on defendant's declaration of lack of knowledge of a plaintiff's protected speech); Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment based on testimony that investigator was unaware of the plaintiff's statements or her history of criticizing the city). In Keyser, the plaintiff-school official, a member of the superintendent's cabinet, complained about the superintendent's alleged misuse of federal money to the school district's Board of Trustees, which subsequently questioned the superintendent.

  9. Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego

    940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 169 times
    Finding that the plaintiffs did not plead a claim under the Fourth Amendment because the complaint "contain[ed] no facts as to . . . the specific circumstances" of the conduct that allegedly caused the constitutional violation

    The facts as presented are derived from Plaintiffs’ FAC. For purposes of our analysis, we accept the allegations as true. See Karam v. City of Burbank , 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). Capp is the father of two minor children, N.C. (age 11 at the time Plaintiffs filed their FAC) and J.C. (age 9), whose legal custody he shares with their mother, Debora.

  10. Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego

    936 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    For purposes of our analysis, we accept the allegations as true. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003).Capp is the father of two minor children, N.C. (age 11 at the time Plaintiffs filed their FAC) and J.C. (age 9), whose legal custody he shares with their mother, Debora.