Case law

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

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.”)

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

Sanders v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

652 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 1986

WMATA HAS NOT WAIVED ITS IMMUNITY Once Eleventh Amendment immunity is established, the next issue presented involves whether WMATA has waived that immunity. … Clearly, the activity, in issue, was in the public interest. Defendant provides persuasive authority in Division 241, Amalgamated Transit Union v.

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.

Dennard v. Rollins

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2026

Because sovereign immunity applies, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. … Disparate Treatment—Loan Denial According to USDA, Plaintiffs’ must establish four elements to make a disparate treatment claim: (1) that they were “‘member[s] of a protected class,’” (2) applied for and were qualified

Haddad v. Crosby Corp.

374 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1973

company securities which is totally inconsistent with antitrust concepts and which accordingly creates, as Congress clearly intended, an exemption and immunity from antitrust liability for the defendant dealers’ conduct … The SEC may also grant qualified exemptions from NASD rules for “smaller companies” [§ 22(b)(1)], Section 22(b)(2), another 1970 addition, gives the SEC the same rate-fixing powers over non-NASD broker-dealers as Section

Taylor v. Islamic Republic of Iran

811 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2011

FINDINGS OF FACT Under the FSIA, a court cannot simply enter default judgment, but must, out of respect for the principle of sovereign immunity, ensure that plaintiffs “establish [their] claim or right to relief … . § 1605A(a)(2)(i)–(iii). 13  Here, the established facts warrant waiver of defendant’s sovereign immunity as provided by the FSIA.

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.

District of Columbia Podiatry Society v. District of Columbia

407 F. Supp. 1259 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 1975

For example, it would be unreasonable for a State to cover immunization against polio but limit the dosage of vaccine to one. (Emphasis added). … The key phrase in this provision is “qualified to perform the service.”

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.

Thomas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2019

To establish pretext, “the qualifications gap [must be] ‘great enough to be inherently indicative of discrimination’—that is, . . . the plaintiff [must be] ‘markedly more qualified,’ ‘substantially more qualified,’ or ‘ … “Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, . . . claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(1) and not with prejudice.” Warnock v.

Union of Concerned Scientists v. Wheeler

377 F. Supp. 3d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2019

The starting point for analysis is the waiver of sovereign immunity in the APA. … "Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, 'the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction

American International Group, Inc. v. Islamic Republic

493 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 1980

Under the narrow interpretation, CII and its property are clearly subject to jurisdiction since CII is a commercial entity. … Third, the defendants and their property do not enjoy any immunity pursuant to the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 , et seq. (1976).

Fenwick v. United States

691 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2010

immunity.” … The defendants rely on materials outside the pleadings in making their qualified immunity arguments, see, e.g., Defs.’ Mot. at 29-30, and so those arguments must be addressed as part of a motion for summary judgment.

Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran

74 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1999

Because this Court finds that Congress has not clearly and unequivocally waived the United States’ sovereign immunity, the Court GRANTS the United States’s Motion to Quash the Writ of Attachment. … In holding that a subcontractor’s lien against government funds owed to an insolvent prime contractor was barred by sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court stated that such a result “is in accord with our precedent establishing

Hartford Insurance v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

422 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2006

In 1996, Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to add a new exception to foreign sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(7). … Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, alleging a federal common law claim established by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, on December 18, 1998, and amended their complaint on June 10, 1999, adding another plaintiff

Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

248 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Sept. 28, 2007), qualifies as such a dismissal, see Dkt. 12 at 8, that assertion is incorrect. The Order in question dismissed some, but not all, of Harrison’s claims. … It states that it establishes an administrative procedure for record review separate from the Privacy Act and its statutory requirements. See id. at 10.