Case law

Kittner v. Gates

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2010

Finally, Defendants argue that, even if Kittner can bring her Bivens claims, the Defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Given the dismissal of Count VI of the Amended Complaint as explained, supra, there is obviously no need to consider whether the individually sued Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Gallo v. Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2023

F, ECF No. 1-8, at 6, 8; id. at 8–9 (arguing that studies “establishe[d] that natural immunity is far more effective than the vaccines in preventing infection”). … Gallo’s request for a medical exemption because prior exposure to COVID-19 does not qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Id.

Heuer v. Smithsonian Institution

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2022

their immunity from damages claims under FCRA. … Circuit recently held in a FCRA case, “these provisions speak clearly enough to waive federal sovereign immunity.” Mowrer v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 14 F.4th 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2011

Here, the evidence establishes facts sufficient to justify the waiver of defendants’ sovereign immunity under the FSIA. First, Iran was designated a state-sponsor of terror by the U.S. … Here, as in Rimkus II, “plaintiff’s Complaint does not clearly articulate a particular theory of recovery, but rather alleges facts necessary to establish the five basic elements of a cause of action under § 1605A.”

Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

815 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

Ganley clearly lacked the actual authority to bind USPS to a contract with Neopost, USPS likely could have resolved this issue decisively by submitting an affidavit or declaration. See, e.g., Pure Power!, Inc. v. … Citing Penn Central, Judge Urbina concluded: To establish a taking . . .

Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2023

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) “establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts . . . … “While the FSIA establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts . . . that grant of immunity is subject to a number of exceptions.” Id. at 13–14.

Johnson v. Quander

370 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2005

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, a DNA sample “establishes only a record of the defendant’s identity — otherwise personal information in which the qualified offender can claim no right of privacy once lawfully convicted of … a qualifying offense.”

Achagzai v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

109 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2015

LEGAL STANDARDS The plaintiff bears the burden to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). … Here, however, a 226-page complaint is clearly excessive, particularly in light of its extensive repetition.

Keogh v. Pearson

244 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 1965

It is difficult to read into the decisions an intent that any and all material, no matter how slanderous and defamatory, is now to be held immune from any implication of an intent of malice until such intent is established … We recognize that the automatic implication of malice under the prior “libel per se” rules are clearly eliminated in libel cases involving public figures.

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

Info Labs Inc. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2020

Nonetheless, USCIS denied the visa petition, claiming the four statutory requirements to establish the Computer Systems Analyst as a “specialty occupation” were all unmet. Mem. Op. at 4. … Info Labs argues that USCIS was “without substantial justification” when it found that Info Labs had failed to show its Computer Systems Analyst was a qualifying “specialty occupation” and denied the H1-B visa petition, and

Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia

730 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2010

The notice requirement is a prerequisite to a suit against the District of Columbia “because it represents a waiver of sovereign immunity.” Faison v. … The Court therefore must determine to what extent plaintiff is claiming damages that may qualify as “liquidated.”

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta

444 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2006

Therefore, there is no specific formula for the Secretary to follow or particular criteria established to determine whether it will be helpful in carrying out the enumerated provisions. … Section 30166(m)(4)(C) also fails to qualify under the second prong of Exemption 3 because it neither “refers to particular types of matters to be withheld,” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3), nor clearly states that Congress, in writing

Acosta v. University of the District of Columbia

528 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 1981

Plaintiff clearly has established a prima facie case on this claim. First, Acosta, a Spanish-surnamed citizen of the United States, is a member of a protected class. … This extensive teaching experience, which covers an eighteen-year period, clearly qualifies as the equivalent of eight years of full-time teaching experience.

Fraternal Order of Police v. Gates

602 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2009

However, this conclusory statement sheds no light on any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court. … Plaintiffs’ allegation that the action was “clearly not the product of reasoned thought,” PI.

Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao

360 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2004

While the plaintiff may be more qualified in the general area of economics, clearly Carroll’s past experiences with farmworkers was directly relevant and made him particularly attractive to Dr. … clearly meets its burden of providing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiffs employment.

Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Bos.

386 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2019

The record establishes that Airbnb plays multiple related but distinct roles in the online platform it has established. … Such a requirement is entirely consistent with the First Circuit's application of CDA immunity in Jane Doe and Lycos .

Unsuck Dc Metro v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2020

Eleventh Amendment Immunity WMATA also argues that it enjoys sovereign immunity, which precludes Unsuck’s APA and common-law claims. Defs.’ Mem. at 7. … WMATA thus enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity unless WMATA has consented to suit (thereby waiving its immunity) or Congress has abrogated WMATA’s immunity under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Coll. Sav.

Lane v. Random House, Inc.

985 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 1995

“Had defendants merely used plaintiffs name in the Advertisement, that use would clearly fall within the incidental use exception under the above-cited precedents. … By “expressing a point of view only ... the challenged language is immune from liability.” Phantom Touring, 953 F.2d at 729 .