Case law

Lipscombe v. Ridley

780 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1991

If the suit is against the defendant in his individual capacity, he has qualified immunity which shields him from this suit. As stated in Harlow v. … Moreover, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery”. Mitchell v.

Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran

507 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2007

establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e); Roeder v. … The evidence also clearly shows that the goal Uda and his associates maintained was to do an unlawful act towards as many American citizens as possible.

American Road & Transportation Builders Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

865 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2012

In doing so, it provides jurisdiction to the district courts, waives the sovereign immunity of the United States, and establishes a cause of action. See Royster-Clark, 391 F. … The Clean Air Act clearly forecloses that interpretation.

Wells v. Hense

235 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2017

There was no system in place to verify that an individual qualified to teach or monitor the students was present in each assigned classroom (Am. … Speiser, et al., The American Law of Torts, § 10.2, at 361 (1986)). 13 Under District of Columbia law, these defendants are immune from civil liability for ordinary negligence. See D.C.

Brewer v. Islamic Republic of Iran

664 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2009

Terrorism Exception to Sovereign Immunity The “state sponsor of terrorism” exception to sovereign immunity was recently amended by the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (“2008 NDAA”) … Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 01-863 (D.D.C.2007) (Report of United States Magistrate Judge Kay at 15 [hereinafter “Kay Report”] (finding that the attack “clearly qualifies as an extrajudicial killing”)). 2.

Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran

845 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2012

Under the FSIA’s conception of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a foreign state is “presumptively immune” from suit. Saudi Arabia v. … Legal Standard for Default Judgment Under the FSIA Under the FSIA, a court cannot simply enter default judgment; rather, out of respect for the principle of sovereign immunity, it must ensure that the plaintiffs have established

Coulibaly v. Kerry

130 F. Supp. 3d 140 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2015

Coulibaly need not invoke the APA’s sovereign immunity waiver—and indeed does not do so—because he relies on Title I of the FMLA, which, as explained above, already contains an express waiver of sovereign immunity. … Coulibaly’s alleged service as a contractor would fail the “economic reality” test, Morrison, 253 F.3d at 11, such that he would have insufficient time-in-service to qualify as an “eligible employee” under Title I, see

Simpson v. Colbert

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2024

This alleged conduct falls very well short of the kind of grievous treatment of prisoners sufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. … Johnson, in turn, does not raise a qualified immunity defense. Instead, Johnson argues that Simpson fails adequately to allege that he was “directly involved in the wrongful acts.”

Brug v. National Coalition for the Homeless

45 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 1999

. § 2000e-16 is a waiver of sovereign immunity, its coverage ought to be strictly construed to limit remedies to persons who are clearly under the control of the federal government”); King v. … An entity must qualify as an “employer” in order to fall under Title VII.

UNITED WESTERN BANK v. Office of Thrift Supervision

793 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2011

Therefore, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated in order to overcome defendants’ motions to dismiss. II. ANALYSIS A. … The court reiterated: The specific language of both the statutes and regulations clearly establish that upon the appointment of ... the receiver ... the members, officers, and directors of that association, save and except

Porteous v. Baron

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2010

Under that Rule, "the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction," Fowler v. District a/Columbia, 122 F. … testimony in conducting his impeachment and removal proceedings in Congress-are clearly legislative and thus exempt from judicial review.

United States v. Guinand

688 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 1988

Such immunity may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual, or as otherwise permitted by law or applicable rules of procedure. … In view of the foregoing and since it clearly appears that defendant is no longer *777 clothed with diplomatic immunity and that he has failed to depart from the United States within a reasonable time after his cooperation

Shea v. Clinton

850 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2012

State has adduced no evidence that its interpretation that the FRAA mandated establishment of the MLAAP immune to Title VII challenge is one that was promulgated by the agency prior to commencement of litigation or in a … In reviewing Shea’s Title VII claim, the Court noted that Shea had to satisfy three elements of the claim: (1) that the MLAAP was unlawful, (2) that except for his race, Shea was qualified for the program, and (3) that

United States v. Slough

677 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2009

The government has acknowledged that many of these statements qualify as compelled statements under Garrity v. … ... then the government clearly has used the immunized testimony”).

Lopez v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 256 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2017

The Supreme Court has “grounded the right of access to courts in the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause.” Christopher v. … This Court recognizes that the failure to execute a Final Decision clearly does not rise to the level of severity as a police shooting. However, the D.C.

Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic

646 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2009

It is well-established that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void as to that defendant. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 442 (D.C.Cir.1987). … Syria argues that this case falls under all of the Baker factors, that the designation of a state as a sponsor of terror, a critical element of abrogation of sovereign immunity under the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity

Buzzanca v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2021

The court begins its discussion with whether BOP employees qualify as “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States.” … “Private persons cannot establish facilities to detain other persons,” the court further explained, “only the government can, either on its own or through a governmental contractor.” Id. at 127.

Synanon Church v. United States

579 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 1984

Conboy, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 608 , 616 n. 20, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983) (reserving the question of United States Attorneys’ authority to immunize in civil proceedings). … In addition to the significance of these events in establishing a fraud upon the court, they prompt serious concern over compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 11, as amended August 1, 1983.

Lemley v. Mitchell

304 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 1969

It is true that if plaintiff in this action is forced as a defendant in the Court of General Sessions to establish his immunity from suit, he must undergo the expenses of defending a suit which *1274 might have been unnecessary … Section 2679(d) clearly indicates that even after the Attorney General has issued a certification and the case has been removed to the District Court, that court, upon a motion for remand, may consider whether the defendant

United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.

288 F.R.D. 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2012

Work product doctrine The party who seeks work product doctrine protection is responsible for establishing applicability of the protection and that there has not been a waiver. U.S. … Plaintiff’s substantial need for the requested documents which are available only from Murray Work product protection is not absolute but rather, it is a qualified immunity “designed to balance the needs