Case law

Uni-Top Asia Investment Limited v. Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2022

[in] which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under [the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)] or under any applicable international agreement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a). … To establish personal jurisdiction in this case, it must accordingly show that SIPC qualifies as an “agency or instrumentality” of the same. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a)–(b), 1603(a).

Zimmerman v. National Football League

632 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 1986

In light of Connell, it cannot be read as limiting the types of agreements that may qualify for the exemption. … Causation between the injury and the alleged antitrust violation is a well established requirement in private antitrust cases. Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v.

Hatfill v. Gonzales

505 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2007

The District Court concluded “that Lee had met both of [the Zerilli ] guidelines to overcome the journalists’ qualified privilege,” finding “that the information was clearly central to the case” and “that Lee had exhausted … Hatfill has satisfied both prongs of the Zerilli guidelines necessary to defeat the journalists’ qualified privilege, because as more fully set out below, the information *43 sought is clearly central to his Privacy Act claims

Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc.

853 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 1994

(“[Section] 1981 is clearly a federal source of rights and unlike Title VII, ‘§ 1981 is not derived from a statutory scheme whose policies would be frustrated by the relitigation under another remedial statute.’ ” (quoting … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitle to vote, form giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Kirschenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran

572 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

Legal Standard for FSIA Default Judgment Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, no judgment by default shall be entered by a court unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to *209 relief by evidence satisfactory … Since service has been effected and plaintiffs have established an exception to immunity pursuant to § 1605(a)(7), this Court has in person-am jurisdiction over defendants Iran and MOIS. III. Liability A.

Pendleton v. Keisler

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2010

But both Myers and Fletcher were qualified as well, a fact Pendleton himself admits: "These guys, as I said, they're qualified, very qualified." Pendleton Dep. at 115:19-20. … Here, Pendleton has not satisfied his burden of establishing that he was significantly more qualified than the selectees. See Adeyemi, 525 F.3d at 1227.

Jones v. Bernanke

493 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2007

(noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … Further, only qualified applicants were granted an interview and because the plaintiff received an interview, the court presumes that he was qualified for the position.

Hurt v. Lappin

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2010

In other words, a supervisor cannot be held liable for the actions of a subordinate, even if the subordinate violated a clearly-recognized constitutional right of a plaintiff. Mr. … He has not identified any clearly established constitutional right that was violated. A prisoner has no liberty interest in his security classification, Meyer v. Reno, 911 F.

Khochinsky v. Republic of Poland

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2019

“The FSIA establishes a default rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … The Counterclaim Exception Khochinsky next invokes the counterclaim exception to the FSIA to establish jurisdiction.

Cartwright International Van Lines, Inc. v. Doan

525 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2007

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Rann v. Chao, 154 F.Supp.2d 61, 64 (D.D.C.2001). … Plaintiffs clearly intend this argument to apply to their pending CBCA cases as well. See CBCA Claim of Cartwright International Vanlines at 6.

Richardson v. District of Columbia

711 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2010

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (“[I]mmunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is well established .... … Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” (citing Bradley v.

Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C.

130 F. Supp. 3d 326 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2015

Plaintiff objects that “[tjhere is no work product immunity because Arrowood never sought Defendant’s services to bring a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, litigation was not imminent and no lawsuit' was ever brought.” … Plaintiff contends that the cases cited by the Magistrate Judge "go the other way” on the issue of whether a forwarding company can qualify as an agent for attorney-client privilege purposes. Pl.’s Objs. at 5, 7.

Art Metal-U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

577 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 1983

First, 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) states that the government has not waived immunity with respect to claims “arising out of ... interference with contract rights.” … The government’s agents are not separate from the government itself for purposes of establishing the three parties necessary to a three-party tort.

Robbins v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

72 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2014

be granted. 2 monetary benefits a qualifying individual receives under the Section 8 Program. … “It is substantially more difficult for a petitioner to establish redressability 2 HUD addressed Ms.

Johnson v. United States

590 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2008

Unfairness may result where, for example, “the losing party clearly lacked any incentive to litigate the point in the first trial, but the stakes of the second trial are of a vastly greater magnitude.” Id. … Nor does the plaintiff establish by defendant Buggs’ apparent involvement with halfway house placements for District of Columbia Code offenders establish contacts in this forum sufficient to justify the exercise of personal

Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2022

But what qualifies as a reasonable amount of time before execution “will of course vary according to the nuances of each case.” Ned Chartering and Trading, Inc. v. Repub. of Pakistan, 130 F. … Thus, the FSIA waives Pakistan’s sovereign immunity.

New Vision Photography Program, Inc. v. District of Columbia

54 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2014

Defendants raise numerous arguments in their Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs forfeit two: Price’s lack of standing and the qualified immunity of the individual Defendants. … Additionally, Plaintiffs never addressed the argument that the individual Defendants – DDS employees Anderson and Moses – have qualified immunity from § 1983 claims.

Cunningham v. Eeoc

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2024

Judge Wright issued a decision on April 11, 2019, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Compl. at 6. … Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v.

Hudert v. ALION SCIENCE & TECH. CORP.

429 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2006

Grunléy-Walsh further argues that because’ the GSA is a federal agency, this Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction as a result of the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. at 6 . … This is a reasonable request because discovering evidence that will support this inference may prove useful in establishing negligence on the part of the GSA employees.

General Railway Signal Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

625 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 1985

The interest figure is derived from the rates established by 26 U.S.C. § 6621 , which are based on the average prime rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. … The local code provision clearly was intended to make six percent the applicable rate unless the parties fixed some other rate. No such rate was fixed here.