Case law

Harrison v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2021

They submitted the required self-certification of non-willfulness and were informed by an IRS officer that they qualified for the lower penalties under the Transition Rules. Id. at ¶¶64–65. … Supp. 3d 63, 74–75 (D.D.C. 2016) (noting that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity will not apply where an “adequate alternative remedy” is available and thus that “dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

National Federation of Federal Employees v. Weinberger

640 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 1986

Burns, 427 U.S. 347 , 96 S.Ct. 2673 , 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), for the proposition that “[t]he imminent denial of constitutional rights clearly constitutes irreparable injury.” … The record before the Court does not indicate the criteria used to determine whether a civilian employee is “qualified” for the local assistance program.

Liebman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

15 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2014

– i.e., performing a “function normally performed by a judge” – is immune from suit on all judicial acts as long as the judge was not acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction. … First, Plaintiffs do not address the fact that other Defendants contesting venue besides Deutsche Bank have shown that venue is clearly improper in this district.

Valibeigi v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2024

“[M]ere conclusory statements” cannot establish a claim plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. … For purposes of this statute, a municipality or local government qualifies as a “person.” See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978).

Gable v. United States

931 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2013

This court, however, is in no position to conduct such a jurisdictional inquiry since FTCA claims are clearly outside our jurisdiction. … Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (absent a specific waiver, the United States government is protected from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity).

Lazur v. United Mine Workers of America

471 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1979

Plaintiff worked in all some 27 months as a teller, a wholly insufficient period to qualify. His job as a teller was clearly part-time or temporary employment within the meaning of the Plan. … Plaintiff completely failed to establish any full-time work for his District. A review of all facts before the Committee is not necessary.

In Re Long-Distance Tele. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax

539 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2008

Different policy considerations underlie the two deadlines established by § 6532. … Furthermore, customers prejudiced by the temporary continuance of the tax could recoup their losses through the refund procedure established by Notice 2006-50, which established safe harbor refund amounts of $30 to $60.

United States v. Sutton

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2022

Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997)), or a motion to dismiss the indictment in its entirety on a theory of qualified immunity, see id. at 4-5 (citing Bushrod v. District of Columbia, 521 F. … Relatedly, he suggests that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct on October 23, 2020, was reasonable as a matter of law. See Reply ISO Sutton 4th Mot. at 4-5.

United States v. Shark

158 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2001

This conviction clearly qualifies as a prior felony conviction that was a crime of violence. The factual circumstances surrounding the December 1981 attempted robbery are not so clear. … The Court finds that prejudice is clearly established in this case.

Szuch v. Lewis

193 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1960

The language of the Coal Wage Agreement clearly sets out the establishment of a trust fund for the payment of pensions and other benefits, with discretion in the trustees to establish the detailed basis for payment from the … Defendants have not established the defense of laches.

Taylor v. Federal Aviation Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2018

But, absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, an award of interest cannot be recovered against the United States. See Library of Congress v. … Cir. 1986) (“Absent a clearly manifested congressional decision to waive the traditional ‘no-interest rule’ in government suits, we cannot award . . . interest in this case.”).

Crockett v. Mayor

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2020

Although not clearly spelled out in his complaint or his brief, it appears that Crockett premises his claim under Title II of the ADA—and thus his claim under the DCHRA—on both a theory of disparate treatment due to his … But he has not offered any evidence to show, as he must, that he was “qualified” to be in that class. Dkt. 33-1 at 85–87 (Crockett Dep.

Gray v. Lahood

74 F. Supp. 3d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2014

“To establish a prima facie case under the ADEA, for a claim involving a failure to hire, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she is a member of the protected class (i.e., over 40 years of age); (2) she was qualified … Rather, the plaintiff asserts generally that she was “highly qualified,” Opp’n at 8, 19, and conclusorily that Gallaway and Sierra were “less qualified,” id. at 5; Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18, 46.

Akins v. Federal Election Com

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

The FEC found that, under the regulations then in force, the Executive Committee of AlP AC qualified as "members" of the organization and that communications to them were "membership communications." … Such a sham, according to the Commission, is clearly not in issue here, given AIPAC's primary focus on lobbying, which it has actively conducted for more than forty years.

Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran

248 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Here, the state-sponsored terrorism exception to sovereign immunity applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a). … Fraenkel has established negligence by Iran and Syria under Israeli law. F. Damages for U.S.

Agosti v. Huge

378 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 1974

Boyle, D.C., 337 F.Supp. 296 , the Trustees of the Fund established by Resolution 90 the requirements currently in effect. … Thus, plaintiff clearly does not qualify under Resolution 90 which requires 5 years of such service. . See final judgment and order approving settlement of regulation issues, Blankenship v.

Morton v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2010

Mem.”) at 3;1 for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants, id. at 6-9; and based on governmental immunity from liability for punitive … Morton has alleged a qualifying continuing tort; however, because Ms.

Rocky Ford Housing Authority v. United States Department of Agriculture

427 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 1977

First, it clearly demonstrates that, in giving specific consideration to the rural housing programs established by Title V of the 1974 Act, Congress was not only aware' of the significance of its choice of language, but was … Projects funded by such loans .are termed “qualified” for rural rent supplements. 5 .

Walker v. Jones

675 F. Supp. 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1987

As such, the plaintiff has clearly stated a justi-ciable constitutional cause of action. Davis, supra, 442 U.S. 228, 235 , 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2271 . Walker, supra, 733 F.2d 923 at 933 . … Accordingly, this Court concludes that pursuant to the principles established by the Supreme Court in Davis, Bush, and Carlson, supra, the plaintiff has stated a “justi-ciable constitutional claim upon which relief can be

Grove v. Loomis Sayles & Company, L.P.

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2011

Analysis In the District of Columbia, all employment is at-will “unless a contrary contractual intent is clearly expressed[.]” Turner v. Fed. Express Corp., 539 F. … The applicable section states: “[Defendant] has established a policy of circulating job openings to give all employees an opportunity to apply for positions in which they are both interested and qualified as determined