Case law

Cherokee Nation, the v. Nash

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2010

functions as a waiver of immunity in the D.C. … Soc’y at 562 (cautioning that “[c]ourts would do well to clearly articulate whether they are ordering a transfer pursuant to the [first to file rule] or, instead, § 1404(a)” due to different effects for purposes of appellate

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. United States Department of Homeland Security

527 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2007

“This preclusion,” the DHS reasons, “renders the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable, and because the FRA does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity, there is no applicable waiver .... … A document that qualifies as a federal record may not, as explained above, be discarded by agency fiat. See Armstrong II, 1 F.3d at 1278 .

Banner v. United States

303 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2004

As clearly established, although District residents have no right to congressional representation, the federal government may tax them. Loughborough , 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) at 325, 5 L.Ed. 98 . … The District and its Council clearly have standing in their own right, see Wyoming v.

Miller v. Lyng

660 F. Supp. 1375 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 1987

The plaintiff, who was 54 at the time in question, clearly belongs to the protected class. 2. … While this is certainly admirable, defendant could not establish that it made the selectee a better candidate for the FOM position.

Lin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2019

Lin pending the arrival of a qualified interpreter or qualified interviewer.” TAC, ECF No. 70, ¶ 154 (emphasis added). … But, the District of Columbia is not immune from suits challenging ministerial functions.

Gss Group Ltd. v. Republic of Liberia

31 F. Supp. 3d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2014

did] not by themselves establish the required control.” … First, it noted that “the sale of a portion of its fleet as part of a massive restructuring hardly qualifies as CAVN’s ‘day-to-day’ business.” Id.

Nanko Shipping, USA v. Alcoa, Inc.

107 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2015

Article 9 of the Convention gave Guinea a qualified right to ship 50% of the bauxite produced: The Government [of Guinea] reserves the right, inasmuch as it does not adversely affect the … Guinea, however, cannot be joined because it is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Hall v. Washington Metropolian Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 2, 2020

The plan administrator, in turn, “shall notify . . . any qualified beneficiary” whose coverage may be affected by the qualifying event of their right to elect continuation coverage. Id. § 300bb-6(4). … Amendment immunity” of Maryland and Virginia.

Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo

916 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2013

Defendants Expressly Waived Sovereign Immunity Foreign states are “immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States” except as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act … Commisimpex’s Complaint amounts to an attempt to circumvent the procedures Congress established for the confirmation of New York Convention awards in the FAA.

Soltan v. El Beblawi

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2021

Plaintiff, however, argues that the State Department’s certification of Defendant’s immunity does not conclusively establish Defendant’s immunity absent evidence of the IMF’s consent to Defendant’s diplomatic status and … Under the Diplomatic Relations Act, immunity “may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual.” 22 U.S.C. § 254d.

Ficken v. Golden

696 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2010

Howard Univ., 984 F.Supp. 27, 29 (D.D.C.1997) (observing that “it is well established that removal generally requires unanimity among the defendants”) (quoting Balazik v. … Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C.Cir.1992)] Order, the defendant clearly advised plaintiff of her obligation to respond (and the consequences of inaction or insufficient action)”).

Kronberg v. U.S. Department of Justice

875 F. Supp. 861 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 1995

•The Department of Justice Manual clearly requires that all requests for immunity for witnesses must be in writing on DOJ Form OBD-111 and must be approved by either the U.S. or Assistant U.S. Attorney. … materials relating to immunization of grand jury witnesses. 30 Copies of materials relating to immunization of grand jury witnesses. 107 Trial immunity orders and applications. 112 Richard Welch [sic] immunity motion and

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2010

Waiver of Immunity In addition to outlining jurisdictional requirements, the FSIA sets forth the limited circumstances in which a foreign state waives sovereign immunity and becomes liable to suit under the Act … defendants’ traditional immunity.

Porzecanski v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2018

(emphasis added)).4 Yet even though 4 Even if the administrative law judge’s finding was not conclusive on the Court, the record establishes that Porzecanski’s IVIG treatment was “reasonable and necessary,” 42 U.S.C. … The instructions clearly permit Medicare Part B to cover off-label uses of certain drugs, see Medicare Benefits Policy Manual, Chapter 15, § 50.4.2, and the instructions distinguish as separate requirements the definition

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2012

These claims clearly involve “personal injury or death” under FSIA § 1605A(a)(1). … Here, the established facts warrant waiver of defendants’ sovereign immunity as provided by the FSIA.

Rogers v. Lucassen

777 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 1991

Defendants try to escape this rather persuasive precedent by claiming that the 1978 amendments to the union’s Constitution somehow establish a new precedent. … Moving Picture Machine Operators’ Protective Union, Local 224, supra, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has stated quite clearly that a union “cannot immunize itself from discrimination simply by affording each member

Ho-Chunk, Inc. v. Sessions

253 F. Supp. 3d 303 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2017

(“HCI”) is a wholly tribal-owned entity established by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska under its tribal law, and “acts as the [tribe’s] economic development arm.” Compl. ¶ 9. … But “sovereign immunity” is a term of art, and in this context it is clearly a reference to tribes’ general immunity from suit, see Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg.

Simon v. Republic of Hungary

37 F. Supp. 3d 381 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2014

The defendants recognize that “the wrongs inflicted upon Plaintiffs and millions of others were wrongful – they clearly were,” and note that “[n]othing said in the defense of this lawsuit can, or should, diminish the world … immunity.

Lewis v. Green

629 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 1986

It is well *553 established that judges are immune from damages for actions undertaken within their jurisdiction. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) (federal judge immune from civil liability); Foster v. … On motion for summary judgment, should such a motion be made, the defendants would, of course, be entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity. Butz v.

N.Y.C. Apparel F.Z.E. v. United States Customs & Border Protection Bureau

563 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2008

The Court reasoned that the plaintiff must have secured either a judgment on the merits of its claim or a court-ordered consent decree to qualify as a “prevailing party” based on the Court’s traditional interpretation and … the fee limitation sought by the defendants in Martin , applying § 4 of the OGA to the defendant in this instance “would upset the reasonable expectations of the parties,” id. at 360, 119 S.Ct. 1998 , and would therefore clearly