Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation: Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document: Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-02-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065442/mansourian-v-regents-of-the-uni... ↗

Full Text

1,718 chars

[20] UCD next urges this court to conclude that the § 1983
claim against the individual defendants is precluded by the
doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendants, however, did
not raise a qualified immunity defense in any of their disposi-
tive motions before the district court.20 Our discretion to
affirm on grounds other than those relied on by the district
court extends to issues raised in a manner providing the dis-
trict court an opportunity to rule on it. See Proctor v. Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1226 (9th Cir. 2009);
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima
Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 478 n.20 (1979) (“[T]he prevail-
ing party . . . was of course free to defend its judgment on any
ground properly raised below whether or not that ground was
relied upon, rejected, or even considered by the District Court.
  19
      Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002), held
that each “[d]iscrete act[ ] such as termination, failure to promote, denial
of transfer or refusal to hire . . . constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful
. . . practice’ ” for the purposes of triggering the statute of limitations
period in a Title VII case. Morgan left undisturbed our case law governing
continuing systemic violations.
   20
      UCD raised a qualified immunity defense in its answer to the stu-
dents’ complaint but never litigated it thereafter.
2236 MANSOURIAN v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA
. . .”) (emphasis added). As the district court has had no
opportunity to rule on the individual defendants’ qualified
immunity defense, we will not affirm on that basis. The dis-
missal of the students’ § 1983 claim is therefore reversed. CONCLUSION

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text