Case law

Smothers v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2020

immunity. … But because qualified immunity requires a finding of a constitutional violation, see Harlow v.

Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2023

Nigeria Is Not Immune Under the FSIA. Having established that this matter falls under the New York Convention, and thereby the FAA, the next question is whether Nigeria is immune from suit under the FSIA. … Resultantly, the Court finds that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applies, stripping Nigeria of sovereign immunity and establishing the Court’s subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the case.

Walen v. United States of America

246 F. Supp. 3d 449 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

The law is well-established that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity, but “it is less clear whether the plaintiff or the government bears the burden of proof to show whether … a discretionary function exception to a waiver of sovereign immunity applies.”

Stradley v. Capital Transit Co.

87 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1949

maintained against the United States in any case not clearly within the terms of the statute by which it consents to be sued." … Applying this rule of construction to the present case, I find nothing within the letter of the statute constituting a waiver of immunity in respect of claims against the United States for contribution in actions in tort.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy

514 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 1981

FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir.1958) establishes the standards for issuing a preliminary injunction in this circuit. … Gulf could not sue the DOE for money damages because of sovereign immunity; Gulf could not sue the 341 Unit, because the 341 Unit will not retain any of the funds at issue; the DOE would not have authority to order participants

Armstrong v. Bush

721 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 1989

That jurisprudence included principles ranging from the “political question” doctrine, to sovereign immunity ..., to official immunity, to prudential limitations upon the courts’ equitable powers, to what can be described … The fact that Congress has so clearly chosen to divest the President of discretionary control over Presidential records, and instead to transfer such control to the United States, see id. at § 2202, goes a long way (if not

Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran

605 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

. § 1605 (a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), plaintiffs litigated this civil action against defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, and the Iranian Revolutionary … No other federal civil actions qualify for such an extraordinary measure. The new power of lis pendens afforded to FSIA plaintiffs under § 1605A is exceedingly broad.

Nepal v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2022

The APA waives the Federal Government’s immunity only as to nonmonetary relief. … And claims barred by sovereign immunity must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.”); Fed. R. Civ.

Brookens v. United States of America

981 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2013

“Esquire” to refer to himself in such manner as to convey the impression that he is entitled or authorized to practice law in the District of Columbia, or in any way holding himself out as authorized or qualified … After a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(5) is filed, the plaintiff is obligated to establish that he has properly effected service. Strong-Fischer v. Peters, 554 F. Supp. 2d 19, 23 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted).

In Re FTC Corporate Patterns Report Litigation

432 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 21, 1977

It appears that solicitation of sales or shipment of goods potentially can qualify as doing business. … This court’s subject matter jurisdiction is established by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 ,1337.

Havens v. Mabus

146 F. Supp. 3d 202 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 2015

qualified now.” … to be not physically qualified.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2004

Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666-667 (4th Cir.2001)(“In order to establish ... the scheme to defraud, the Government must prove that the defendants acted with the specific intent to defraud, which may be inferred from the totality … "Defendants, having been hailed into court in the earlier litigation, were clearly not exercising their right to petition the government.”

Payne v. District of Columbia

279 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2011

Plaintiff concedes that “Council review, hearing consideration and approval [are] ... protected by legislative immunity.” Id. at 2-3. … to those decisions was a finding that “the information is being gathered as part, in connection with, or in aid of a legitimate legislative act[ ]” (id. at 57), or that the allegations of the party seeking the discovery “establish

Turkmani v. Republic of Bolivia

193 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2002

In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 *175 states the well-established maxim of international law that “states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned.” 28 U.S.C … As alluded to earlier, these facts clearly demonstrate that the State of New York has the most significant relationship to the parties and the subject transaction.

Gold v. Gensler

840 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2012

The panel reviewed the applications and put each candidate in one of four categories: “Best Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Minimally Qualified.” 17. … A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) she was a member of the statutorily protected age group (over the age of forty); she applied for and was qualified for the position sought; (3) she was not

Vasser v. Shinseki

280 F. Supp. 3d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 2017

Plummer were clearly qualified for the position. And while Ms. … While it is ultimately up to the jury to decide the weight of this evidence, this evidence quite clearly calls into question the veracity of Dr.

Carter v. George Washington University

180 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2001

A 47 year-old, African-American woman, the plaintiff is clearly a member of the two protected classes at issue: race and age. … The plaintiff also demonstrates that she was qualified for the position of Executive Director.

Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2025

Thus, immunity is remaining jurisdictional hurdle. Typically, foreign states are “immune from the jurisdiction” of United States courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … That is, a plaintiff who “estab- lish[es] a waiver of foreign sovereign immunity under § 1605(a)” also “establish[es] entitlement to relief as a matter of federal law.” Levinson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 443 F.

Prevatt v. Islamic Republic of Iran

421 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2006

establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e); Roeder v. … Therefore, the elements of civil conspiracy are established between the defendants in this case and the actual perpetrators of the attack. C.

Thomas v. Gandhi

650 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

This Court thus accepts as the law of the case that Thomas did not establish he is significantly better qualified than Edmonds. C. Insufficient Evidence of Age Discrimination. … Having failed to establish that he was “ ‘significantly’ or ‘markedly’ more qualified for the job,” see Hendricks v.