Case law

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

971 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2013

Cir. 2001); see also Galvan, 199 F.3d at 463 (resolving a sovereign immunity challenge before subject-matter jurisdiction, holding “[s]overeign immunity questions clearly belong among the non-merits decisions that courts … Circuit found it “need not decide whether non-payment of on-board revenues qualifies as a direct effect” because it found a direct effect through other factors. 27 indicated

Elkins v. District of Columbia

610 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2009

seizure was clearly established). … Thus, they do not assert qualified immunity. Instead, some of the Individual Defendants contend that they were not personally involved in the seizure. 10 .

Rice v. United States

211 F.R.D. 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2002

The Court will assume (but does not decide) that the strict construction rule applicable to waivers of sovereign immunity requires that § 552a(g)(4) be read as narrowly as the Fourth Circuit reads it. … United States, 732 F.2d 181, 186 (D.C.Cir. 1984), establishes that, in this Circuit at least, “emotional trauma alone is sufficient to qualify as an ‘adverse effect’.” And even the Doe v.

Crow Tribe of Montana v. United States

789 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1990

To establish standing under article III, a plaintiff must demonstrate “actual or threatened injury,” Glandstone Realtors v. … First, the Crow Tribe has sufficiently established that it is injured by the alleged failure of the government to enforce Section 2 of the Crow Act.

Horton v. Espindola

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2018

United qualifies as an “employer” under the WCA and is thus immune from suit. … United does qualify as a special employer, it must have contributed to the purchase of workers’ compensation insurance to enjoy immunity. See D.C.

Hammons v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2023

The Act provides that foreign states ordinarily enjoy sovereign immunity from suits in U.S. courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1604, but also establishes several exceptions to that rule, see, e.g., id. §§ 1605- 1605B. … Among other things, the Camp Sullivan attack qualifies as an act of terrorism covered by the Act, and Plaintiffs’ expert evidence shows that Iran’s material support for the Taliban was a proximate cause of the bombing.

Misko v. United States

77 F.R.D. 425 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 1978

The United States has moved to dismiss on a claim of immunity. … But because the parties have not had an opportunity to argue this issue or establish a record in this regard, they will be given a *430 short period of time in which to do so.

United States v. Roy

282 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2017

Those limited opportunities for departures did not save the mandatory Guidelines from being held unconstitutional in Booker and they are not enough to immunize the mandatory Guidelines from vagueness challenges here. … Accordingly, this Court concludes that Roy has established cause for his procedural default. b. Prejudice The government also contends that Roy has failed to establish actual prejudice to excuse his procedural default.

Blackwell v. United States Department of Treasury

656 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 1986

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by his own testimony. … Plaintiff was not qualified for a GS-3 position. Plaintiff established that he is and was at the time a transvestite.

Feinerman v. Bernardi

558 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2008

But where, as here, the plaintiff in question cannot recover damages from the defendant due to the defendant’s sovereign immunity, see Bowen v. … Philadelphia Housing Auth., 143 Fed.Appx. 447, 455 (3d Cir.2005) (assuming that a Pennsylvania housing authority was a "governmental unit” for purposes of qualified immunity from suit for municipalities).

Estate of John Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran

943 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2013

Plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). A 1996 amendment to the FSIA revoked sovereign immunity protection for terrorist-sponsoring governments. … Accordingly, there is no sovereign immunity bar on awarding family member plaintiffs punitive damages. Besides waiving sovereign immunity, section 1605A creates a federal cause of action for some individuals.

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

461 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 1978

Telecommunications carriers clearly do not enjoy an express statutory immunity from antitrust enforcement with respect to the activities here involved. … The two categories are not clearly distinct, and they sometimes merge in their analysis and application. 27 . Hughes Tool Co. v.

Miango v. Democratic Republic of Congo

243 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2017

Moreover, “[sovereign immunity may not be waived by federal agencies.” Id. … Instead, plaintiffs focused on the availability of a qualified immunity defense, and they missed the mark entirely. Id. at 7 . .

Jean-Baptiste v. Booz Allen Hamilton

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2024

They thus do not qualify as facts that can support a motion for summary judgment or an opposition to a cross- motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). … Nor does Jean-Baptiste clearly explain what right the conspiracy inhibited. Remember, he “must show” that the conspiracy was “aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against private[] . . . encroachment.”

Martin v. District of Columbia Government

968 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2013

Brodsky would be entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Martin points to no clearly established law showing that Mr. Brodsky had a duty to act under these circumstances. See Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

Nunes-Correia v. Haig

543 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 1982

The government asserts that since no language in the Act expressly and unequivocally waives sovereign immunity retroactively, the policy against implied waivers of federal sovereign immunity precludes courts from awarding … Only once the Act was passed and its effective date established could litigants have changed their behavior in response to the Act’s incentives.

Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2009

It is well-established that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void as to that defendant. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1987). … commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly

Yuk-Ling Wu Jew v. Attorney General

524 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1981

... to qualified immigrants who are the brothers or sisters of citizens of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (a)(5). 2 . … An alien clearly has no right to immigrate to this country, Kleindienst v.

Kenny v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2024

Start with subject matter jurisdiction and its concomitant abrogation of sovereign immunity. … As an Uzbekistani national, Oksana does not qualify for FSIA private right of action. Oksana Kenny Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 22-4; see M.M., 708 F.

Mgm Resorts Global Development, LLC v. Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2020

“Where, as here, a party seeks to intervene as a defendant to uphold an action taken by the government, the party must establish that it will be ‘injured in fact by the setting aside of the government’s action it seeks … thus does not qualify as an “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.”