Case law

MBI Group, Inc. v. Credit Foncier Du Cameroun

558 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2008

Claiming immunity subject to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 , defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for an absence of subject matter jurisdiction. … Cameroon, by contrast, clearly has a far stronger stake in this controversy. This dispute concerns an agreement to build a series of affordable housing projects in Cameroon.

Edmond v. United States Postal Service

727 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 1989

Defendants correctly argue, however, that these defendants are immune from suit under the principle of sovereign immunity. 3 “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ..., and the … We do not agree that Ricci and Ollestad extend immunity to defendant Green.

La Réunion Aérienne v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

477 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2007

The State-Sponsored Terrorism Exception As a general rule, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), enacted in 1976, establishes that foreign states (including “a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency … The immunity waiver provision only requires that the victim (or the claimant) was a U.S. national at the time of the terrorist act, and there is no dispute that the victim decedents so qualified.

Sutherland v. Islamic Republic of Iran

151 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2001

Foreign Sovereign Immunity 2 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) grants foreign states immunity from liability in United States courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. … Thus, the pains normally attendant to being a hostage, most notably the loss of liberty and contact with loved ones, although clearly tortuous within the common meaning of the term, cannot qualify as torture under 28 U.S.C

Larsen v. Hoffman

444 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 1977

Even after amendment, however, it cannot be said that section 1331 constitutes “a waiver of the sovereign immunity doctrine under which the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued … Officers determined not to be among the “best qualified” are not recommended, that is, they are “passed-over”, for promotion.

Satterlee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

195 F. Supp. 3d 327 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2016

The IRS has not waived its sovereign immunity to plaintiff’s claims. The United States is immune from suit unless Congress has expressly waived the defense of sovereign immunity by statute. United States v. … Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[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.”). 2 The IRS also

Talley v. District of Columbia

433 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2006

“Liability on the merits and responsibility for fees go hand in had; where a defendant has not been prevailed against, either because of legal immunity or on the merits, § 1988 does not author *8 ize a fee award against the … So to qualify as a prevailing party, the plaintiff must satisfy two requirements. One, he must have prevailed to some degree on the merits.

Salazar v. District of Columbia

938 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 1996

However, as discussed below, the record clearly establishes that NPA Medicaid applications are not processed in a timely manner. 1. … This evidence clearly establishes a “course deliberately pursued by official policymakers,” which has caused a deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law. Cf. Carter v.

Molton, Allen & Williams, Inc. v. Harris

436 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1977

Congress established the Court of Claims to determine claims of this kind and magnitude. … We therefore distinguish Trans-Bay on the basis that that case did not involve only questions of contract law and regulations, as this one does, and was not clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye

901 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

Moreover, the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). B. … As the Counterclaim is for a breach of contract, an exception concerning tortious conduct is clearly inapplicable.

Hertzberg v. Veneman

273 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2003

While plaintiff does not clearly identify all materials released to him or to Mr. … As Professor Charles Alan Wright has explained, in order to come within the qualified immunity from discovery created by Rule 26(b)(3), three tests must be satisfied.

Falco v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2020

While day-to-day decisions may qualify for the purposes of discretionary immunity, Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, “exempt decisions” must be those “‘fraught with . . . public policy considerations,’” not just those that involve … “[D]uration of the alleged hazard is important in establishing constructive notice.” Wilson v. WMATA, 912 A.2d 1186, 1190 (D.C. 2006) (citing Hines v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 379 A.2d 1174, 1175 (D.C. 1978)).

Smith v. Califano

446 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1978

Accordingly, it is necessary at the outset to discuss that case briefly in order to establish the foundation on which this decision rests. … ’ fees “unless Congress [had] clearly indicated that it should.”

Burnett v. Sharma

511 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2007

Administrative proceedings do not qualify as court proceedings for purposes of § 1985(2), id. … “The language of this provision establishes unambiguously that a colorable claim under § 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim for neglect to prevent under § 1986.” Thomas v.

Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2025

The Court found that the plaintiffs had alleged plausible claims of speech restriction and First Amendment retaliation, and that the defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Black Lives Matter D.C. v. … immunity.”

Hunter Ex Rel. A.H. v. District of Columbia

64 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2014

The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the District of Columbia from suit for its discretionary activities. Nealon v. … Nealon, 669 A. 2d at 690 ("If the act is committed in the exercise of a ministerial function, the District is not immune.").

Howell v. Gray

843 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2012

The Court has already established that any such right, if it exists, could only have arisen under the IDEA. … Supp. 2d 114, 118 n.2 (D.D.C. 2003) (the court may consider a sovereign immunity defense sua sponte).

Sharma v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

57 F. Supp. 3d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2014

The Settlement Agreement clearly provided that plaintiff’s last date on the WMATA premises would be December 31, 2001. Defs.’ Br. at 2. … of immunity by Congress or waiver of immunity by the state or state agency.

Daskalea v. the Washington Humane Society

275 F.R.D. 346 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2011

In addition, the Court has already concluded that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as they are being sued for constitutional violations in their individual capacities in connection with … Hawk, 215 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C.Cir.2000) ("Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established

Battles Farm Co. v. Hills

414 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 1976

Plaintiffs have each qualified for operating subsidies since February 18, 1975. … Sovereign immunity is no bar to the award of relief in this action. Sovereign immunity does not extend to acts by an officer of the United States in excess of statutory authority or in derogation of a statutory duty.