Case law

Fiberlight, LLC v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2017

It is well-established that it is a plaintiff’s prerogative to select the claims it wishes to bring; thus, WMATA may not simply recharacterize a contract-based claim as a tort claim and then assert sovereign immunity. … sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal, courts have held that WMATA is immune from certain equitable claims.

Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2022

“[A]n enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). … Selective Removal of Immunity Plaintiffs next claim that FOSTA is violative of the First Amendment due to its “selective” removal of Section 230 immunity.

El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Human Services

300 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2004

(“El Rio”) 'through contracts established between El Rio and each physician’s individually-owned, eponymous corporation. … Youngblood, 200 F.3d 744 , 746 (11th Cir.2000) (“the inclusion of contractor liability serves as an expanded waiver of sovereign immunity”)).)

Cromartie v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2011

sufficient to establish probable cause for his arrest. … However, Plaintiff’s testimony does not clearly establish that the amount of force used by Defendant Rodriguezgil was more force than was reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. See Scott v.

Bolden v. England

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2009

Supp. 2d 148 (D.D.C. 2007), however, the court found that a plaintiff failed to establish that she was qualified for a promotion based solely upon her responsibilities: Even assuming that she performed all of the … Oct. 27, 1980), a plaintiff “clearly established” a prima facie of discrimination when he was not promoted although he had been eligible for promotion for a significant amount of time, had “many successful years of service

Nonbelief Relief, Inc. v. Kautter

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2020

Upon incorporation, NonBelief Relief qualified as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Id. ¶¶ 4, 31. … Lynch, 5 The operative complaint alleges that the IRS’s revocation of NonBelief Relief’s tax-exempt status violated both the Establishment and Due Process Clauses, and that the church exemption violates only the Establishment

Moore v. Napolitano

926 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2013

The plaintiffs establish, however, that Dr. Mann’s applicant to best qualified list analysis is relevant because it “measure[s] the adverse impact of how MPP scores are actually used,” Pls.’ … The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues

Lemon v. Kramer

270 F. Supp. 3d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2017

. ¶¶ 21, 30–32, 39– 2 The Court does not address Defendants’ arguments related to service of process, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, though these … Here, there is another district that would clearly be appropriate to hear this matter—the District of Maryland. All Defendants and Mr. Lemon allegedly reside in Maryland and the alleged acts forming the basis of Mr.

Michigan Gambling Opposition (MichGO) v. Norton

477 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2007

Workers Pension Plan for Emples., 191 F.Supp.2d 10, 15 (D.D.C.2002) (citing In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 279 U.S.App. … See Intv.’s Reply, at 18 (“[T]he Tribe expressly agreed to waive its sovereign immunity vis-a-vis the local agencies for purposes of enforcing those agreements (AR 221222, 239), and it possesses no sovereign immunity vis-a-vis

Taucher v. Rainer

292 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 2003

Therefore, only clients of the Institute for Justice could be prevailing parties, and, in order to qualify, they had to file certificates establishing their eligibility under EAJA by showing that they each had a net worth … qualify independently for EAJA or because counsel represented the organization pro bono.

Ward v. Jeffrey Parker

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2021

Supp. 381, 385 (D.D.C. 1992) (concluding that the “Court is clearly barred by § 511(a) from issuing” a preliminary injunction to compel veteran’s medical treatment). … Supp. 3d 121, 126 n.6 (D.D.C. 2017) (“It is a well-established principle that a district court can neither review the decisions of its sister court nor compel it to act.”).

Canuto v. Carter

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2018

“First, the defendant must qualify for either general or specific jurisdiction under the relevant District of Columbia statutes.” Id. … Canuto clearly states that she is suing the defendants in their official capacities. See Pl.’s Suppl. to Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 60 at 1. However, even if Ms.

St. Luke's Hospital v. Thompson

224 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2002

As discussed above, the burden to submit “convincing objective evidence” establishing that it qualifies for an exception pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 413.170 (g) always remains with the provider. … and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Empresa Cubana Exportadora De Alimentos Y Productos Varios v. United States Department of Treasury

516 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2007

would not be clearly forbidden.” … OFAC may well have done just that, but neither the Administrative Record nor the Szubin declaration clearly articulates the reasoning process it followed.

Dameron v. Washington Magazine, Inc.

575 F. Supp. 1575 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1983

Plaintiff concedes that a “fair comment” or “record” privilege immunizes a publication when it constitutes a “fair and substantially correct statement of the record.” Memorandum at 25; see Alexandria Gazette Corp. v. … The language of the report of the NTSB so clearly supports the statement in the Washingtonian that air traffic controllers 10 were partially responsible for the crash on Mt.

Boardley v. U.S. Department of the Interior

605 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2009

The individual defendants move to dismiss all claims against them on qualified immunity grounds. Analysis A. As-applied challenges 1. … The dismissal of Boardley’s as-applied claims renders moot the individual defendants' motion for qualified immunity.

Dawes v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2023

Although the FSIA generally grants foreign states complete immunity from suit, see 28 U.S.C. § 1604, it also establishes specific exceptions to that broad grant of immunity. See Mohammadi v. … Second, Syria qualifies as a foreign state. Third, Dawes alleges personal injury, including severe physical, mental, and emotional harm. See Mot. at 17-20.

Duncan v. United States

355 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 1973

“It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations.” United States v. … Administrator to make rules concerning the certification of airline pilots; rather he alleges negligence in the application of the established standards of certification. The F.A.A.

Krishnan v. Foxx

177 F. Supp. 3d 496 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 2016

Nonetheless, these allegations merely establish a prima facie case, (i.e., that he is a member of a protected class, was qualified for the position, and was rejected in favor of an employee outside the protected class) … Cir. 1985). 13  The Amended Complaint does not clearly identify Mr.

Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President

821 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 1993

It is an established principle of law that once a court issues an injunction, those persons subject to it must obey the terms of the Order as long as the injunction remains in effect. See SEC v. … The Court is aware that imposition of monetary sanctions against the federal government often is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.