Case law

Williams v. Conner

522 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

amounts to “little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver” of sovereign immunity. … To establish such fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must typically show an affirmative act of concealment — in other words, “ ‘some misleading, deceptive or otherwise contrived action’ to conceal information material

Fox v. Harris

488 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 1980

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only in cases of clearly arbitrary and illegal official action when no alternative judicial or administrative relief is available. … Plaintiff’s grievance fails to qualify under those extreme requirements.

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Johnson

540 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2008

Subtitle D, by contrast, governs the handling of solid wastes that do not qualify as hazardous. … Plaintiffs advance two grounds to establish standing: informational and associational standing.

Jacobs v. Mones (In Re Mones)

169 B.R. 246 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1994

Furthermore, the debtor clearly obtained the funds under the second view because he can be said to have benefitted from the money that he fraudulently obtained control of. … Under section 17a(2) of the Bankruptcy Act which excepted from discharge "liabilities for obtaining money or property by false pretenses ...", the term "obtaining” clearly qualified the phrase property such that if the debtor

Law Offices of Arman Dabiri & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Agricultural Bank of Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2019

The FSIA does not protect foreign states and their instrumentalities with blanket immunity. … because “[t]here is no claim that any exception to sovereign immunity applies in his case.”

Banks v. Kramer

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2009

Also, to the extent that Paragraph 36 deals with DCCA proceedings, judicial immunity applies. See, e.g., Forrester v. … This clearly pertains to the 1987 Injunction and is barred by the Penn Injunction.

Murray v. District of Columbia

826 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 1993

The naming of defendants in their individual capacities does not save plaintiffs § 1983 claim, because the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Even assuming that there was such a violation, however, there was no violation of a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable government actor would have known. Anderson v.

Pollinger v. United States

539 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2008

However, Section 1340’s “general grant of jurisdiction does not ... constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States.” Id. … As Counts XVIII, XX, and XXI of Plaintiffs Complaint are clearly premised on alleged constitutional violations, the Court understands his argument to be that his constitutional claims seek injunctive relief, rather than monetary

United States v. North

708 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1988

Some redactions were, of course, presumptively immune from disclosure. … Preclusion is clearly justified when the failure to properly notice not only causes delay — as it clearly would here — but when the defendant’s conduct could also frustrate the important value of permitting the government

Akridge v. Gallaudet University

729 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2010

Id. at 12 (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”). … Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 851 (D.C.Cir.2006) (holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext based on her self-serving affidavit and own subjective assessment that she was qualified for the position).

Benoit v. United States Department of Agriculture

577 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2008

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. … The mere docketing of a Section 741 Complaint Request does not establish that the underlying complaint is itself an “eligible complaint” within the meaning of Section 741. See Defs.’

Montgomery v. Chao

495 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2007

Rather, “[t]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not … “The mere assertion [by the plaintiff] that [the plaintiff] was more qualified is insufficient to establish pretext.” Van Slyke v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 17 Fed.Appx. 154, 157 (4th Cir.2001).

Abdullah v. Washington

530 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 2008

Repace has been qualified as an expert in a number of cases related to ETS. Id. … In light of the Court's ruling on the Eighth Amendment claim, it does not reach defendants' municipal liability and qualified immunity arguments.

Independent Petrochemical Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

117 F.R.D. 292 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1987

The Magistrate has examined the documents in camera and it clearly appears that they were written in connection with the rendering of accounting services by Peat, Marwick. … immunity provided by this subdivision." .

McCready v. Principi

297 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2003

That document is clearly a confidential memo concerning the performance review of a high-ranking official and is clearly covered by the Privacy Act. … The EDMS is clearly a Privacy Act system of records and has been so declared by VA in a Federal Register notice found at 65 Federal Register 25534 (2000).

Blank v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2021

This Court must decide, therefore, whether defendant is entitled to immunity under the “state sponsor of terrorism” exception provided in §1605A. 5 “[T]he FSIA establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns … immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts,” Mohammadi v.

Lewis v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2009

Marshal--do not establish ‘a meaningful evidentiary showing.’”) (quoting Favish, 541 U.S. at 175). … Under the “public-domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v.

Kelley v. District of Columbia

893 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2012

It is established that there is no fundamental right to government employment. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emp. v. United States, 330 F.3d 513, 523 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. … immunity.

Sobin v. Washington Dc Board of Elections

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2026

“If there is only one person qualified to fill the vacancy . . ., the vacancy shall 2 be deemed filled by the qualified person.” Id. at § 1-309.06(d)(6)(D). … Code clearly distinguishes between the process of filling a vacancy where there is only one qualified candidate, on one hand, and a special election in which residents “vote to elect a Commissioner,” on the other.

Ficken v. Golden

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2010

Mot. to Remand. 4 “it is well established that removal generally requires unanimity among the defendants”) (quoting Balazik v. … Westphal, 78 F.3d 1252, 1257 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that a litigant’s pro se status “does not give a party unbridled license to disregard clearly communicated court orders”); United States v.