Case law

Pacific Ranger, LLC v. Pritzker

211 F. Supp. 3d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

To the contrary, the law clearly establishes that any and all takes are categorically prohibited, and that only accidental or non-intentional (i.e., unknowing) takes are permissible per an incidental-take authorization … The Plain Text Of The MMPA And Its Implementing Regulations Establishes That Only Accidental Or Non-Intentional (Unknowing) Takes Qualify As Incidental Returning to the nuts and bolts of

Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham

20 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2013

To determine whether WMATA is qualified for immunity from a particular claim, a court engages in a two-step process. … Thus, 17 WMATA has not clearly waived its sovereign immunity from liability for promissory estoppel claims. Martin v. WMATA, 273 F.

Clyde v. Walker

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2022

But imposing these fines also qualifies as a legislative act. … But these actions too qualify as legislative acts.

Holloway v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 1, 2025

through the formal ADA process established by the defendant, of which the plaintiff had notice). … The question whether sovereign immunity has been waived implicates courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated by the federal

United States v. Jaffe

98 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 1951

That this is clearly so was subsequently recognized by the Sub-Committee in its report, and in that connection it made recommendation *197 that an adequate statute of immunity be formulated and adopted. 5 In the light of … Such safeguards as Congress deems proper could be provided against any improvident use of such immunity.

Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Admittedly, Bettis was decided under the Flatow Amendment, but this Court finds nonetheless that Bettis should still control now that Congress has clearly established a private right of action against a foreign state sponsor … Additionally, counsel for plaintiffs interested in pursuing relief under Rule 60 must also detail how their prior actions under § 1605(a)(7) would have fit within the framework established by § 1083(c) and therefore qualified

Friends of the Earth v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

934 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2013

Reply at 2–3; Draft Tr. at 20:19–:21 (Counsel for plaintiff: “I think it’s Section 304 that clearly waives sovereign immunity and grants this Court 1 EPA reminds the Court that it must construe waivers of sovereign … Cir. 2000) (“District Court decisions do not establish the law of the circuit, nor, indeed, do they even establish the law of the district.”)

Morrow v. United States

723 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2010

But this claim clearly relates to the alleged failure to promulgate regulations and procedures and is therefore outside of § 7433’s tax collection activities sovereign immunity waiver. … The United States incorrectly characterizes Count 19 as a Bivens claim, Def.’s Mem. at 3, as this count is clearly pled as an alleged violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . Compl. at 20. 6 .

Morgan v. International Bank for Reconstruction & Development

752 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 1990

“as decisions made in the execution or implementation of a discretionary policy or activity, namely, establishing a chancery for the Naval Attache in the District of Columbia.” 809 F.2d at 922-23 . … The alleged false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress clearly involved the exercise of policy judgment.

Rosenkrantz v. Inter-American Development Bank

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2021

The IDB has been so designated on two occasions, and therefore qualifies for immunity under the IOIA. See Exec. Order No. 10,873, 25 Fed. Reg. at 3,097; Exec. Order No. 11,019, 27 Fed. Reg. at 4,145. … In determining that the FSIA “governs the immunity of international organizations,” the Supreme Court in Jam noted, without deciding, that “it is not clear” that even “the lending activity of all development banks qualifies

Uberoi v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

180 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2001

Congress Has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity With Regard to the Plaintiffs Claim Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit and may define the conditions under which it will permit actions … A claimant’s failure to establish waiver deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id.

Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia

615 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1985

Note, Establishing Jurisdiction Under the Commercial-Activities Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 19 Hous.L.Rev. 1003, 1013 (1982), citing, inter alia, Castro v. … If Congress had so clearly intended American courts to have jurisdiction, it could easily have mandated, through regulation, a waiver of immunity clause in all AID *95 grant contracts.

Williams v. Romarm

187 F. Supp. 3d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

In their opposition, plaintiffs dispute defendant’s claim of sovereign immunity, contending that defendant’s actions qualify as “commercial activity.” … Accordingly, a “district court authorizing discovery to determine whether immunity bars jurisdiction must proceed with circumspection, lest the evaluation of the immunity itself encroach unduly on the benefits the immunity

Kent v. North Carolina Department of Revenue

716 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2010

The Act does not clearly cover damages, but the principle of sovereign immunity, for the reasons set forth in this memorandum, prevents this Court from permitting Kent’s action to go forward including insofar as he seeks … These legal authorities, which establish the federal judiciary, U.S. CONST, art.

Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

77 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2015

To qualify as torture, the mistreatment must be purposeful—that is, the defendant must have targeted the victim, for instance, to punish him for his religious or political beliefs.”) … Supp. 2d at 155 (“Although an analysis of a foreign sovereign’s potential immunity and liability should be conducted separately, the elements of immunity and liability under § 1605A(c) are essentially the same in that §

Laukus v. United States

691 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2010

Because Laukus’s APA claim clearly relates to the IRS’s tax collection activity, it is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. … Laukus does not clearly delineate the extent to which he is seeking damages on behalf of American Pride Trust as opposed to himself.

Deryck v. Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2023

Even if the Court found that Bivens applied, it would dismiss this claim because the officials are entitled to qualified immunity. See MTD at 18–20. … Deryck does not show that their “conduct . . . violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (cleaned up).

United States v. King

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2021

See Opp’n at 9 (“Despite establishing an ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason, Defendant’s sentence should not be reduced.”). … Even putting variants aside, it is unclear how long natural immunity lasts.

Himex Co. v. United States

17 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2014

However, § 2680(c) states that the waiver of sovereign immunity provided in § 1346(b) shall apply to claims that would ordinarily fall under the detention exception if the plaintiff can establish that: (1) the property was … To say the least, it strains credulity for the plaintiff to argue that it “did not forfeit its interest in the sunglasses,” see id. when a Himex representative signed the clearly titled “Notice of Abandonment and Assent to

Buck v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2019

immunity.” … Finally, the Court held that California’s “mere receipt of federal funds” was insufficient to “establish that [the] State ha[d] consented to suit in federal court.” Id. at 246– 47.