Case law

Clements v. Gonzales

496 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2007

. § 2071 (stating that “the Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business”). … In addition, it is plain that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Graves v. United States

961 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1997

Timmons, 672 F.2d 1373, 1380 (11th Cir.1982) (“It is well established ... that the United States has not waived its immunity to suit under the provisions of the [Civil Rights Act]”); Biase v. … The plaintiff's race is clearly a protected class under § 1985(3). Compare De-Santis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 608 F.2d 327 , 333 (9th Cir.1979) (gays are not covered); D’Amato v.

Dorman v. Thornburgh

740 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1990

As the plaintiffs’ complaint makes clear, their challenge is not to any conspiracy but to a specific regulatory scheme; this Court will not allow the plaintiffs to assert the fiction of a conspiracy simply in order to establish … However, the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity with respect to constitutional torts; accordingly, there is no applicable waiver of sovereign immunity for plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants in

United States v. Inslaw, Inc. (Inslaw, Inc.)

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,765 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 1989

Thus, the government’s sovereign immunity had been effectively waived. … Wooster, 119 U.S. 322, 326 , 7 S.Ct. 217, 218 , 30 L.Ed. 392 (1886) (with regard to patent infringement, established license fees are the most reliable measure of damages); Leesona Corp. v.

Allen v. United States

625 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 1986

Finally, the Maryland Act has a specific provision which abrogates the well established principle of statutory construction that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed for the purposes of this … Having read the Act in its entirety, the Court finds that it does not clearly state whether or when a general contractor can be considered an “employer” of its subcontractor’s employees.

Miango v. Democratic Republic of Congo

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2020

The agency concluded that the individuals did not qualify for diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Relations Act, Statement of Interest at 5–7, but that discovery would aid in its determination of whether they were … Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v.

Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Authority

467 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2006

To summarize, in its previous Opinion the Court held that: (1) collateral estoppel precluded the relitigation of the issues surrounding defendants’ assertion of sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity does not divest … The Court declines to reconsider its previous decision on sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction.

Simpson v. Reno

902 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 1995

Plaintiffs have failed to establish a clear violation of any criminal statute of the United States. … To grant Plaintiffs’ request and enter a default against the defendants would give them relief they are clearly not entitled to receive. The complaint is totally without merit.

Kalur v. Resor

335 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1971

Sovereign immunity is not a bar to this action. … A clearly established criminal prohibition, however, such as this section, cannot be administered out of existence by the defendants’ attempt to exceed their clearly defined statutory authority. In United States v.

Burda v. National Ass'n of Postal Supervisors

592 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 1984

Burda’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to establish any fraudulent concealment by defendants. … not absolutely, immune.

Calixte v. David

320 F. Supp. 3d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2018

The complaint specifically alleges that (1) defendants deprived plaintiff of clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights while acting under color of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , (2) the Town of Stoughton … Here, the defendants rely on grand jury immunity and insufficient factual allegations in the complaint.

Estate of Justin Shults v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

Islamic Republic of Iran, 332 1 In Winternitz, the Court qualified Dr. Levitt as an expert on “the Syrian government’s relationship with ISIS’s predecessor organizations and ISIS itself.” … That is, a plaintiff who “establish[es] a waiver of foreign sovereign immunity under § 1605(a)” also “establish[es] entitle- ment to relief as a matter of federal law.” Levinson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 443 F.

Ogi Group Corporation v. Oil Projects Company of the Ministry of Oil, Baghdad, Iraq (Scop)

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2020

To qualify as “[a]n ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,’” the entity must be (1) “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise”; (2) “an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority … Courts afford entities that qualify as an “agency or instrumentality” a “presumption of independent status” from the foreign sovereign. Foremost- 5 McKesson, Inc. v.

Air Transport Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank

840 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2012

The Circuit clearly requires that harm be both certain and great.”) … Even if injury to Delta, ATA’s other members, or ALPA was certain, Plaintiffs have not established that the magnitude of this future economic harm will be significant enough to qualify as irreparable for the purpose of this

Brandon Mill Manager, LLC v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2021

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. See Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008). … waived immunity for every type of tort.”

Stern v. Richardson

367 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1973

Nor has the government satisfied this Court, by means of affidavit or otherwise, that the documents clearly fall within any of the three exemptions relied upon by the government. … The government can meet its burden only by establishing that a statutorily created exemption is applicable.

Singh v. South Asian Society of George Washington Univ.

572 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2008

[T]he decision about where to post security guards — regardless of whether that decision was negligent — is clearly the type of discretionary function that Congress has exempted from the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity … immunity.”)

Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

422 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2006

Defendants have the burden of establishing a prima facie case of sovereign immunity. See Price v. … Thus, Defendants fail to meet their evidentiary burden to establish sovereign immunity. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity must be denied. 3 Ungar, 402 F.3d at 292. *102 C.

Lombard Corporation v. Resor

321 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1970

While the record indicates clearly that Chamberlain is not a procurement agent for the Army in the usual sense, just as clearly it possesses something more than the status of an independent contractor. … The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inapplicable to this case. 7.

Stoyanov v. Winter

643 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h), and second, federal defendants cannot be sued in their official capacity for damages because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … While plaintiff contests this by claiming that he was the most *14 qualified (Pl.’s Opp’n at 5), it is important to note that plaintiff cannot establish pretext simply based on his own subjective assessment of his own performance