Case law

Paul v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

697 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 1988

Plaintiff does not challenge the qualifications of those, selected for the positions, and either was not herself qualified for the positions or was not as qualified as the persons selected. … Plaintiff is unable to show that she was similarly-situated with the persons selected, because she was not as qualified as they were.

In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation

81 F.R.D. 377 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 1978

Communications that fall within the purview of the privilege are thus rendered immune from discovery. Burlington Industries v. … Florida could not enjoin such activities because to do so would give the state a virtual power of review over the congressional determination, as expressed in the statutes and regulations, that a registered patent agent is qualified

Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover

268 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 1967

The conflict between Rickover’s right to copyright his speeches and plaintiff’s right to publish materials allegedly in the public domain has been clearly set forth before this court. … The definition of “official duties” contained in that line of cases ruling on the question of executive immunity from suit is not controlling here, see generally, Preble v.

Lynn v. National Archives and Record Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2019

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this suit claiming that Defendant failed to establish that the documents are being rightfully withheld in full under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. … Accordingly, the documents withheld from release also qualify for withholding under Exemption 3.

Taylor v. Mills

892 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2012

The page limitation in Local Civil Rule 7(e) clearly refers to the “memorandum” of law and does not encompass attached exhibits. … First, the requests for information from the plaintiff are clearly not adverse employment actions. Even if Ms.

Dehaarte v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2026

Code § 12-309 as a “mandatory prerequisite to filing tort claims” within its purview). 6 More, the statute “is to be strictly construed because it is a departure from the common law concept of sovereign immunity.” Id. … Qualifying Disability The ADA “prohibits discrimination by an employer ‘against a qualified individual with a disability because of’ that disability.” Flemmings v. Howard Univ., 198 F.3d 857, 860 (D.C.

Coleman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

13 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1998

This information clearly qualifies for a “low 2” exemption. The primary function of these numbers is to organize a filing system without using the name of the individuals within the files. … The difficulty arises in establishing who has received an express promise of confidentiality.

National Mining Ass'n v. Office of Hearings & Appeals

777 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2011

Clearly, that is an untenable situation for the Plaintiff. … unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Vasquez v. County of Will, Illinois

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2019

Defendant asserts that John Doe 2 is entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must timely be raised by a defendant. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 639–41 (1980). … A “special relationship” is established by application of a two- part test. Id. The D.C.

Estate of Stephen B. Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran

831 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2011

2008, and while this action was still pending with the special master under § 1605(a)(7), plaintiffs timely filed a motion seeking to proceed under the new state sponsored terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … This Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, holding that plaintiffs followed the proper procedures to qualify for retroactive treatment under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, Pub. L.

Washington v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co.

250 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 1966

Defendant by judicial admission established the report as that of operator Jones. … Plaintiff has not so clearly shown the causes of the stop as to leave nothing to inference.

United States v. Clarke

628 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2009

As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, § 1451 “safeguardfs] citizenship *9 from abrogation except by a ‘clearly defined’ procedure — ‘clearly defined,’ that is, by statute.” Gorbach v. … Even if defendants could establish a “clear duty to act” entitling them to mandamus relief, the Court would not stay the trial.

Minter v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2012

Causation may be established by “a close temporal relationship alone” between the protected activity and the adverse action. Singletary v. District of Columbia, 351 F.3d 519, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2003). … Code § 23-309 is a prerequisite to suit because it operates as a waiver of the District’s sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Faison v. District of Columbia, 664 F.

Cox v. District of Columbia

834 F. Supp. 439 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 1992

Cox, however, must necessarily only establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact. The test was established in Anderson v. … There are no facts that establish that either medicine or treatment was withheld on a permanent or deliberate basis.

Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance v. Leavitt

530 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2008

Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on standing and sovereign immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. … at 22-29); (2) plaintiffs fail to meet prudential standing requirements because their grievance does not fall within the zone of interests protected by the MMA (id. at 30); (3) the United States has not waived sovereign immunity

Jones v. Kaine

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2020

immunity. … Sept. 6, 2019), the ultimate burden of establishing that venue is proper lies with the Plaintiff, id. (citing Varma v. Gutierrez, 421 F. Supp. 2d 110, 113 (D.D.C. 2006)).

More v. Snow

480 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2007

Circuit, however, has clearly held that “a plaintiff who wants to proceed under § 633a(d) must transmit his intent-to-sue notice to the EEOC itself.” Rann, 346 F.3d at 198 . … “To prevail, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing that the plaintiff is a member of the protected class (here, persons 40 or older) who was qualified for and applied for a position, but was rejected

Barber v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2019

“In order to establish a prima facie case under the [DCWPA], [a] plaintiff must allege facts establishing that [(1)] she made a protected disclosure, [(2)] that her supervisor retaliated or took or threatened to take a … Nor has Barber alleged that the conspiracy was based on any other theory of discrimination that might qualify as a denial of equal protection.

Freedom Church of Revelation v. United States

588 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1984

. § 7428 that it continues to qualify as an exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (“Code”), 26 U.S.C. § 501 (c)(3). … Section 501(c)(3) clearly states that an organization must be operating exclusively for religious, charitable, educational or other exempt purposes. Tax avoidance schemes do not qualify as “other exempt purposes.”

State of South Carolina v. United States of America

898 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2012

As we will explain, if those laws were to be placed on a spectrum of stringency, South Carolina’s clearly would fall on the less stringent end. … The number of people without qualifying photo IDs in Georgia is significant, and when Georgia’s law was enacted, there was a racial gap in voters without qualifying IDs.