Case law

Itserve Alliance, Inc. v. Cuccinelli

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 2020

Two statutes that waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity are pertinent here. … But not every award of money qualifies as “money damages” for purposes of the APA. The Supreme Court made that clear in Bowen v.

Sussman v. Powell

64 F. App'x 248 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2003

Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428, 433 (D.C.Cir.2000) (to establish prima facie case of retaliation plaintiff must demonstrate that “<(1) [she] engaged in protected activity, (2)[she] was subjected to adverse action by the employer … On the claim of failure to promote to a Senior Attorney position, the court properly granted summary judgment because Sussman failed to show he was qualified for the position or that the proffered reason for not promoting

Storms v. Shinseki

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2018

The Circuit has also assumed that Bivens was available for a prisoner who asserted retaliatory restrictions in violation of the First Amendment, dismissing those claims on qualified immunity grounds. Aref v. … Not every case will involve equities that clearly favor the plaintiff.

Johnson v. DiMario

14 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 1998

[and][t]hus can be used to chill employees’ statutorily_pro-tected speech,” qualifying them as adverse actions); Hayes, 902 F.Supp. at 266 (observing that a formal reprimand could affect the terms and conditions of employment … Absent full compliance with the conditions placed on the federal government’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a tort claim against the federal government.

Holland v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2025

he is qualified to receive in each distribution round.”). … the establishment of Medicare payment rates,” Am.

DSE, Inc. v. United States

3 F. Supp. 2d 1464 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 1998

. § 121.201 ), which establishes a small business size standard of 1500 employees. Proposals were due and submitted on November 13, 1997. … While some regulations are ambiguous or vague, this one is written quite clearly.

Patterson v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 30, 2021

But even if the Court had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s damages claims, the doctrine of judicial immunity confers absolute immunity on judicial officers against such claims and “extends to court clerks who perform tasks … Tasks that clearly fall within the ambit of the judicial process include the “receipt and processing” of filings. Id.

United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

266 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2002

On the facts presented by Plaintiff, therefore, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. *18 This Court is confronted with a more difficult decision regarding Defendants Breslan and Hamper. … Organizations that qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(3) but that do not qualify as public *13 charities are classified as private foundations.

Almay, Inc. v. Weinberger

417 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1976

Under such an objective test as many as all or as few as none of the products in a particular market might qualify to utilize these terms. But the Commissioner chose a comparative test instead. … Therefore, under an objective definition, if one cosmetic in a particular market could qualify to use the word “hypoallergenic,” then likely all or nearly all could qualify and the usefulness of the term to consumers would

Lyles v. Hughes

964 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2013

Hughes "violated [her] clearly established Constitutional rights" under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Compl. at 10. … not, for example, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by alleging "(1) an act in furtherance of (2) a conspiracy (3) to deprive a person or class of person of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities

Green v. Kenneway

390 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2019

A decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if it "contradicts the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court's cases or confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of … It should defer to that reasoning, even if the habeas court "concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly."

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Toggas

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2020

“To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Gully v. … Nor this case does qualify for diversity jurisdiction.

Debrew v. Atwood

847 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2012

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of his position. Id. at 252. … Generally, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government and its agencies are immune from suit, - 16 - unless Congress has expressly waived immunity.

Raines v. U.S. Department of Justice

424 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2006

On June 16, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding 1) no evidence establishing that the plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability … 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”).

Williams v. Savage

538 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2008

The Regulations explain that alcoholism qualifies as “a physical or mental impairment.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 . … This falls well short of the type of impairment necessary to qualify as a disability under the ADA.

American BioScience, Inc. v. Thompson

141 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2001

Quite plainly, entities like BNP are not sheltered by the sovereign immunity that might protect the FDA from suit. … Because earlier correspondence from the FDA clearly establish that it was aware of the ’331 patent, see, e.g., AR 1 (Aug. 28, 2000 Letter from FDA to BNP) the September 15, 2000 letter implies that the FDA believed the patent

Bigwood v. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

770 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2011

This statute of limitations “is a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Spannaus, 824 F.2d at 55 . … Accordingly, the plaintiff has not established a causal nexus between the filing of his complaint and the defendant’s release of documents as necessary to establish his eligibility for attorney’s fees; therefore, the court

Barnes v. District of Columbia

242 F.R.D. 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Finally, the adequacy of class counsel is well established. … These class counsel were qualified in Bynum, and are even more so after that experience. See Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 36-37 . C.

Tig Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2022

However, the Court went on to hold that “Caja ha[d] not presented sufficient prima facie evidence to establish that it [wa]s a foreign instrumentality under the FSIA such that it would be entitled to immunity from posting … TIG has not established that the implied waiver exception to the FSIA extinguishes Argentina’s sovereign immunity. And as previously decided, no other exceptions to the FSIA apply here. See Second Mem. Op. at 20–22.

Uab Skyroad Leasing v. Ojsc Tajik Air

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2021

To qualify 7 as “[a]n ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,’” the entity must be (1) “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise”; (2) “an organ of a foreign … Here, the parties agree that Tajik Air, which is incorporated under the laws of Tajikistan and fully owned by the state, qualifies as an instrumentality of a foreign state.