Case law

Donnelly v. Sebelius

851 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2012

has expressly waived the defense of sovereign immunity by statute. … “A plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” Jackson v. Bush, 448 F.

Schermerhorn v. State of Israel

235 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2017

To establish jurisdiction in such a situation, we therefore ask for more than merely a non-frivolous argument. … exceptions to immunity apply).

Astakhov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2023

Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity, confusing as it may sometimes be, begins with a simple proposition: “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from … And there is a statute and an agency regulation that, in Plaintiff’s view, qualify the agency’s power to charge fees for employment authorization to individuals in Plaintiff’s position. See Pub. L.

Holland v. Islamic Republic of Iran

496 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2005

Tefft’s testimony in this case established, and other courts in similar cases have found, see Peterson, 264 F.Supp.2d at 50 , the members of the 24th MAU, and the service members supporting the unit, were clearly non-combatants … Jurisdiction The FSIA establishes the broad rule that “foreign states,” including “a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,” 28 U.S.C. § 1603 , are immune from suit in

Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2025

Foreign states are generally immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … More is needed to “clearly . . . undermine . . . public confidence in the administration of the law.” TermoRio, 487 F.3d at 938.

Jangjoo v. Sieg

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2018

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (addressing qualified immunity standard under Section 1983).

United States v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 1983

Thus, the United States is the real party in interest and clearly has standing to sue to enforce its sovereign rights. … Thus, although these contract provisions establish that USCHS is not an agent of the government they do not effect a finding that the USCHS is a federal instrumentality.

Kent v. North Carolina Department of Revenue

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.

Best v. United States

522 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2007

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. … Gaubert, the Supreme Court elaborated on the two-part test it first established in Berkovitz v.

US Dominion, Inc. v. Byrne

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2022

Defamation State law establishes the elements of a defamation claim. See Devin G. Nunes v. WP Company LLC, No. 20-7121, 2022 WL 997826, at *3 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). … ‘information content provider[s],’ which are not entitled to immunity”).

McDaniel v. State of North Carolina

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2024

Second, even if Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim, she has failed to establish subject- matter jurisdiction. … “The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Id.

Johnson v. Panetta

953 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2013

The proposed amended complaint, read as a whole, clearly alleges that the amount in controversy is potentially $107,857.46. Id. at ¶ 10. … Count I of the proposed amended complaint clearly states that Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgement Act. Dkt. No. 13, Ex. 2 at ¶ 17.

Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

412 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2005

Sovereign Immunity The PA and PLO seek dismissal on the grounds that they both meet the definition of “foreign state” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and/or under 18 U.S.C. § 2337 , and … are therefore immune from suit.

Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran

478 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2007

establishes his claim or right to relief by evi *106 dence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e); Roeder v. … Finally, the deceased servicemen and their survivors clearly suffered both physical and mental pain and anguish as a direct result of the attack on the barracks.

Kaur v. Kellenberger

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

The Court Declines To Address Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Arguments Defendants alternatively seek summary judgment on a qualified-immunity theory, should the Court “decides to extend Bivens to this case.” … Simply put, the Court is not positioned to resolve Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments on the summary-judgment record the parties presented, at least not without sifting through the entirety of the record itself.

Chevron Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador

949 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2013

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Ecuador first argues that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, deprives the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Resp. Opp. to Pet. at 10. … The party resisting confirmation bears the heavy burden of establishing that one of the grounds for denying confirmation in Article V applies. See New York Convention, art. V; Imperial Ethiopian Gov’t v.

Smalls v. Emanuel

840 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2012

“The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to some, but not all, torts. Those torts for which the United States retains immunity are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).” Peter B., 579 F. … Here, the Court agrees with the defendant that Counts V and VI are clearly claims of libel, slander, or misrepresentation. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 13, at 18.

Peter B. v. United States

579 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2008

“The [FTCA] waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to some, but not all, torts. Those torts for which the United States retains immunity are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h),” Klugel v. … Bd., 421 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2005) (holding that a contract employee did not qualify as an “employee” under the CSRA).

Young-Bey v. Unity Medical Healthcare

217 F. Supp. 3d 304 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2016

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit unless Congress expressly has waived the defense of sovereign immunity by statute. See id. … This is a waiver of sovereign immunity, see United States v.

McFadden v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2018

,” and “bears only the burden of identifying an accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.” … “[T]he burden of establishing immunity [is] on the official.” Id. (citing Westfall, 484 U.S. at 299).