Case law

Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2021

See 49 U.S.C. § 10706(a)(3)(B)(i) (clearly stating Congress’s intended placement of burden). … Opp. at 33-34 (“[C]ourts consistently reject the idea that an agreement is immune from the antitrust laws if it is any broader than the very specific type of agreement identified by a statute as immune.”)

Haynes v. Williams

279 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2003

Furthermore, the Court notes that even the plaintiffs self-serving evidence fails to establish that his sleep problem was severe. … This clearly does not satisfy the degree of severity required under the ADA.

Davis v. District of Columbia

503 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2007

Accordingly, because a reasonable juror could conclude that the plaintiff was qualified for the two positions, the plaintiff has established his prima facie case. b. Pretext i. … Barnette clearly states that “suspicious hiring practices, together with statistical and anecdotal evidence of discrimination, were sufficient to create an inference of pretext.”

Sales v. Department of Justice

549 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 1982

In sum, at the close of his case plaintiff had established only that, as in the past and at all times relevant, the vacancy announcement for the Deputy Director position did not include the 510 accounting requirements, which … inference of race discrimination in his case in chief, again, a literal application of the McDonnell/Bundy criteria would shift the burden of going forward with the evidence to defendant. 6 Nevertheless, the defendant has clearly

Manning v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2019

Because “[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” a plaintiff’s identification of a valid waiver is critical to establishing a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over FTCA claims. FDIC v. … If Plaintiffs were to perfect service on the Doe Defendants, then the Court may need to evaluate statute of limitations issues, defenses to FTCA claims upon any substitution of the United States, and qualified immunity

Vann v. Industrial Processes Co.

247 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 1965

Vann is qualified to bring a stockholder's action without joining her co-owner. The Court is of the opinion that she is qualified. She is either a tenant in common or a joint tenant of the stock. … Vann is qualified to bring this suit.

United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc.

216 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2016

Cir. 2002)), these declarations clearly could be “converted into admissible evidence,” Gleklen, 199 F.3d at 1369, should these agents testify at trial. … The fact that Dynamic Visions “established” a manual that it believed complied with D.C.

Charlton v. Wynne

District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2009

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. … Cir. 2003) (such waivers are adequate to maintain district court jurisdiction when “clearly and adequately expressed”). 4  Defendant also argues that plaintiff

Onyewuchi v. Gonzalez

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2011

These assertions are clearly without merit. … The Plaintiff Was Required to Offer Statistical Evidence to Establish Causation To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, the plaintiff must not only identify the challenged employment practice, but

Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

498 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2007

The plaintiffs responsibility to establish standing increases throughout the litigation concomitantly with its responsibility to establish any other matter on which it has the burden of proof. … For LTC facility residents, Part D plans should rely on information that clearly indicates the elements necessary to confirm Medicaid eligibility and LTC facility admission dates....

NAWA USA, INC. v. Bottler

533 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2008

Just as clearly, transactions by telephone and facsimile alone can, depending on the circumstances, be an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction. Gorman v. … This is wholly insufficient to establish minimum contacts for the purpose of personal jurisdiction.

Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2016

Levitt to be a qualified expert for purposes of testifying on issues relating to Hamas and Iran's support of Hamas. Tr. at 8. Dr. … As set forth in detail above, Nethaniel has met his burden and has clearly established the necessary elements of battery.

Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, Inc. v. Zinke

District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that “exhaustion was pointless because the tribal court jurisdiction was clearly foreclosed by the sovereign immunity of the United States.” Id. at 860-61. … Plaintiffs have not established that exhaustion should be excused due to the presence of federal Defendants in this lawsuit or due to futility.

Simmons, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc.

221 F.R.D. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2004

The Federal Circuit has established that the willfulness of an alleged infringer rests upon a determination of the infringer’s state of mind. 5 See Read, Corp. v. … Clearly, the work-product privilege protects only those materials lawyers prepare "in anticipation of litigation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3).

Continental Insurance Company v. Sandi Group, Inc.

804 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2011

. § 1651(c), and an employer who secures insurance coverage for its employees under the DBA enjoys immunity from any other claims. Makris, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 206. … So, there is no reason to decline to exercise the jurisdiction that this Court clearly possesses and defer to the agency.

Ellington v. Library of Congress

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2020

Plaintiff’s defamation claim thus does not fall within the coverage of the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Thus, consideration of plaintiff’s June 2019 informal complaint and the LOC regulations establishing the exhaustion regime to which plaintiff’s discrimination claims are subject is appropriate. See, e.g., Kaempe v.

Moore v. United States

102 F. Supp. 3d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2015

Inspector defendants because “it had not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right” and, therefore, “qualified immunity defeat[ed] Moore’s malicious prosecution … The Postal Inspectors appealed this ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity to the Supreme Court, which, on June 11, 2012, vacated the 2011 D.C.

Nemeth-Greenleaf v. United States Office of Personnel Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2026

The injury need not be an “exact duplicate” of an established common-law harm, but there must be a “close historical or common-law analogue for [the] asserted injury.” Id. … The United States retains sovereign immunity for non-economic harms, such as “loss of reputation, shame, mortification, injury to the feelings and the like.” Id. at 295–96, 299, 304. The D.C.

Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

310 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2004

of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly … Achille Lauro, 931 F.2d 44, 47 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that the PLO is not a "state” with immunity). 9 .

Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran

175 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2001

The plaintiffs, who are family members and administrators of the estate of Ira Weinstein, filed this suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 . … It is clearly not appropriate for the Court to use the doctrine of judicial notice to make conclusions of law in the present case based on the conclusions of law made in Eisenfeld .