Case law

Larsen v. United States Navy

486 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2007

Specifically, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by sovereign immunity, Defs.’ Mot. for Summary J. (“Defs.’ … Appropriate Legal Standard of Review for Assessing the Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause Claims Under the current naval policy, the Navy “takes the best qualified candidates, regardless of denomination

Farmer v. Hawk-Sawyer

69 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 1999

Kenneth Moritsugu, then-Medial Director of the BOP, did not have qualified immunity from a Bivens action in his individual capacity, for failure to order his staff to provide treatment to Plaintiff. … Moritsugu’s qualified immunity, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s ruling.

Cherokee Nation v. Nash

267 F. Supp. 3d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2017

Draught after draught of treaties was made, and several clearly agreed upon, when some new difference would arise, and all arrangements be overturned. … Court have been forced to resolve questions related to immunity and venue, delaying any meaningful progress on the underlying issues.

Gasplus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of Interior

593 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 2009

While the government’s position in this litigation toes the line, the Court finds that the stringent standard for establishing bad faith is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. … See In re Turner, 14 F.3d at 640 (“even where a fee award is otherwise authorized, the Government is shielded by sovereign immunity from attorney’s fee liability ‘except to the extent it has waived its immunity’ ”) (quoting

Fuentes v. National Education Ass'n

752 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 1989

The proof clearly establishes that the vacancy should never have been posted from the outset. The vacancy was for a new management position created within the research group. … Moreover, the record clearly establishes that Cameron did not at any time indicate to Fuentes he would, in effect, have an inside track to any management job that opened up.

Colella v. Androus

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2022

VCPA claim because they concluded it did not so qualify. … (1) Is a party’s later position clearly inconsistent with its earlier position?

James v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

Larkin] 9 personally liable fades into respondeat superior or vicarious liability, clearly barred under Section 1983.” Id. at 27. Ms. … Larkin, the court need not reach whether these two defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 10 IV.

Morrow v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2010

Dismissal under Rule 5 The United States incorrectly characterizes Count 19 as a Bivens claim, Def.’s Mem. at 3, as this count is clearly pled as an alleged violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7433. … But this claim clearly relates to the alleged failure to promulgate regulations and procedures and is therefore outside of § 7433’s tax collection activities sovereign immunity waiver. See Scott 608 F.

Henry v. Guest Services, Inc.

902 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 12, 1995

Thus, to establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff also must show that he was qualified and performing satisfactorily, and that his replacement was not in the protected class. … Some of Plaintiff’s allegations clearly cannot support a claim of discrimination.

Hood v. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2009

Eleventh Amendment Immunity It is a well-established rule of judicial restraint that “‘prior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision.’” … While considering the issue of a state’s immunity from removal, the Fifth Circuit noted in In re Katrina Canal Litig.

['Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of the Navy']

25 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2014

It is well established that the analysis under Exemption 6 requires, first, a determination of whether the document in question qualifies as a “personnel, medical, or similar file[].” Multi Ag Media LLC v. … Supp. 2d at 116, and a bare assertion that a document’s “disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of [an individual’s] personal privacy” is not sufficient to establish that a substantial privacy interest

Sabbithi v. Al Saleh

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2009

A defendant’s diplomatic immunity “may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual. . . .” 22 U.S.C. § 254d. … “A treaty will not be deemed to have been abrogated or modified by a later statute, unless such purpose on the part of Congress has been clearly expressed.” Cook v.

Wattleton v. Mnuchin

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2020

Claims against the Secretary of Treasury Are Barred By Sovereign Immunity Plaintiff has named the Secretary of the Treasury as a defendant in this lawsuit even though Congress has only waived sovereign immunity in … Cl. 449, 455 (2008), and requires that a claimant include: (1) a written statement by a physician (as defined in § 1861(r) (1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(r)), qualified to make

Hoffman v. District of Columbia

643 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2009

It is well established that §§ 1981 2 *137 and 1983 3 “do not apply to actions against the United States.” 4 Hohri, 782 F.2d at 245 n. 43; see also United States v. … agency did not constitute a final denial notice because it did not mention, let alone deny, the plaintiffs FTCA claims, was not sent by certified or registered mail by the agency and the title of the document showed it was clearly

Lee v. Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2021

Matthew Levitt. 1 The court qualifies Dr. … immunity under § 1605A(a) has also established entitlement to relief as a matter of law.”

Vera Institute of Justice v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2025

The regulations provide that the agency “must clearly and unambiguously specify all termination provisions in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” Id. § 200.340(b). … “The United States and its agencies are generally immune from suit in federal court absent a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.” Crowley Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Servs.

Hagos v. Pompeo

District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2020

Cir. 2006) (concluding that “Congress clearly has waived sovereign immunity from [Title VII] claims of retaliation”). … ‘established the principle that (a) the federal government, (b) federal contractors, and (c) recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate against the handicapped.’” Milbert v. Koop, 830 F.2d 354, 355 (D.C.

Halleck v. Berliner

427 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 1977

No judicial precedent which has been cited or found points clearly to the proper resolution of this problem. … “The terms ‘exceptionally well qualified’, ‘well qualified’, ‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ do not lend themselves to easy definition.

Transamerican Steamship Corp. v. Somali Democratic Republic

590 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 1984

United Technologies, the Court of Appeals established a four-step inquiry: “As a prerequisite, the Court must establish whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case. … that the requirement is satisfied whenever the foreign forum possesses the equivalents of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, although “rare circumstances” may exist where the “remedy offered by the other forum is clearly

Mitchell v. Holliday

202 F. Supp. 3d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2016

Cir. 2011) (“It is a well-established rule that the Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction. … Mitchell’s qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g) to conclude that the interest of justice will not be served by transferring this case to its sister court in Colorado. IV.