Case law

McNeil v. Duncan

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2020

“At the motion to dismiss stage,” that means that the plaintiff must “allege facts that, if true, would establish that the defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment.” Upshaw, 669 F. … “To qualify as conduct of the kind he was employed to perform, the [defendant’s] actions must have either been ‘of the same general nature as that authorized’ or 4 The test also has a fourth prong that applies in cases

Jackson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2024

This supposed negligence, which comes through most clearly in Jackson’s new allegation that he begged the Officers on the scene to check his GPS monitoring device but that they ignored his pleas, arguably led to Jackson … See, e.g., Lahm, 90 A.3d at 625 (“Such an extension of liability is at odds with the well-established doctrines of probable cause and official immunity”).

Joyner v. Reno

466 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2006

immunity; and (6) venue is not proper in this Court. … This overreaching in the face of long-established precedent is troubling, to say the least.

Ahmed v. Noem

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2025

Sovereign Immunity The defendants contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s APA challenge because the government has not waived its sovereign immunity as the Privacy Act bars the plaintiff … Because the plaintiff would not qualify for relief under the Privacy Act, the Court concludes that he lacks an alternative, adequate remedy that constrains waiver of the government’s immunity under the APA.

Pautsch v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2023

Section 1608(e) requires that “the claimant establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). … Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Foreign states are generally immune from suit in federal court, subject to exceptions codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Pate v. United States

328 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2004

This would clearly be authorizing assault by ambush, which the Court cannot permit. … [allegedly] denfied] the [D.C.Code offense parolees] timely, meaningful preliminary interviews and revocation hearings required by clearly-established constitutional law.”

Estate of Max Steinberg v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 2019

That section establishes that a foreign state has no immunity in any case... . in which [1] money damages are sought [2] against a foreign state [3] for personal injury or death [4] that was caused by [5] an act of torture … Congress, clarifying another terrorism victim recovery statute, specifically excluded such terrorists from qualifying as “military forces.” 18 U.S.C. § 2331(6)(ii).

United States v. Saena Tech Corporation

140 F. Supp. 3d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2015

Cir. 2011) (holding that district courts have “no authority to immunize . . . or to compel the government to immunize”; “[t]he decision to grant immunity from prosecution rests solely with the Executive Branch”). … Even agreements that clearly meet the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act and do not at all implicate a court’s supervisory authority warrant searching review to establish why they should receive court approval.

Carmen Jean-Baptiste v. District of Columbia

958 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2013

qualified.” … Aug. 9, 1995) (“Defendants have the burden of going forward with evidence to establish the amount of earnings to be deducted, and to establish that plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence, if applicable.”).

Kinyua v. Republic of the Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2020

While foreign states are generally immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, see Saudi Arabia v. … To start, plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Iran qualifies under the “state sponsor of terrorism” exception set forth in § 1605A.

Kwon v. Billington

370 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2005

The panel then ranked the qualified applicants and determined that two of these persons — -plaintiff and Ji Ping Wu — were the “best qualified” of the candidates for the position. See Def. … Plaintiff naturally takes issue with defendant’s assertion that Wu was a more qualified candidate.

Sai v. Department of Homeland Security

99 F. Supp. 3d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2015

Plaintiff’s contention that discovery can be tailored in a way that does not burden the Defendants—and, in particular, the individual capacity defendants who may assert qualified immunity defenses—fares no better. … The pending motions may resolve issues well beyond the issue of qualified immunity, and, indeed, may resolve the entire matter.

Brighton Park Neighborhood Council v. McMahon

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2026

When Congress enacted the APA’s waiver, it was well-established that sovereign immunity did not bar personal-capacity claims to “recover damages” or equitable claims against “a Federal officer acting in excess of his authority … The Court ruled that the action was barred by sovereign immunity.

In Re Application of Conrad Smith for Access to Grand Jury Proceeding Materials in United States v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2025

Even if a party can establish that the materials sought are needed for “pending or anticipated” litigation, United States v. … Applicants have not yet clearly explained, however, why all of the material they seek bears directly on essential aspects of the case. Take, as an example, the material Salem purportedly possesses.

Hsieh v. Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2010

Cir. 1997) (“sovereign immunity claims are jurisdictional and thus cannot be waived”). … Federal Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment It is well established that “[t]he federal government is ‘immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.’” Kalodner v.

Lakie v. SmithKline Beecham

965 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 1997

Plaintiffs design defect and inadequate labeling claims, then, clearly are not preempted by the MDA. … (“a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that ... such a relationship exists”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 , 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d

Ramirez v. United States Park Police

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2023

Section 1983 establishes a cause of action against persons who act under the color of state law to deprive an individual of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Still, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that venue is proper, see, e.g., Williams v.

Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran

700 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2010

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. … This is a case where higher ratios are clearly warranted.

United States v. Exxon Corp.

87 F.R.D. 624 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 1980

immunity from discovery. … If the circumstances reveal preparation in anticipation of the prospect of litigation, then the documents enjoy immunity.

Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors

774 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2011

The record does not clearly indicate when this occurred, and therefore Defendant has failed to establish that Grosdidier did not timely exhaust this claim. 4. … Grosdidier has not established that any of these factors were improperly considered or that she was obviously the most qualified candidate based on these factors.