Case law

Asante v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2023

The APA also requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.” 5 U.S.C. … Under Section 706(2)(A) of the APA, Plaintiffs “bear[] the burden of establishing the invalidity of the agency’s action.” Magneson v. Mabus, 85 F. Supp. 3d 221, 225 (D.D.C. 2015).

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.

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

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)).

Evans v. Staples, Inc.

375 F. Supp. 3d 117 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2019

Service of Process Service here was clearly untimely. 2 Accordingly, I must determine whether there is good cause. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) her employer took an adverse employment action

We Charity v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2023

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) provides that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States . . . except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.” 28 … “By definition,” the court explained, “breaching a contract that establishes the United States as a place of performance will have a direct effect here, whereas breaching a contract that establishes a different or unspecific

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.

Whitaker v. Thompson

248 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 24, 2002

The NLEA also established the procedure for FDA authorization and evaluation of health claims for foods and dietary supplements. … Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm by the Refusal of FDA to Allow a Qualified Antioxidant Vitamin Claim.

Howard v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

501 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2007

In order to establish a prima facie case in a Title VII case involving a failure to hire, a plaintiff must show: (i) that she belongs to a protected class; (ii) that she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer … She has shown that there was a position available and that she was qualified for it. See, e.g., Howard Dec., ¶ ¶ 3-11; Woodhead Dep. Tr. at 44:11-12 (“[Plaintiff] was clearly qualified for the job.”).

Chastain v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

401 F. Supp. 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1975

Before discussing plaintiffs’ theories, however, the Court must evaluate defendant’s claim of antitrust immunity. Applicability of Parker v. … The resolution of this issue depends on the facts to be established at trial.

Pa Education Association v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2026

Accordingly, plaintiffs in both cases have also established that they will likely be able to establish organizational standing. 2. … Cir. 2007) (noting that if “the regulation conflicts with the plain text . . . the statute clearly controls”).

Weber v. Hurtgen

297 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2003

At most, the person who is referred to as “senior” is generally designated a larger office space, Toner Aff. at 4-6, which does not qualify as an adverse action. … Noting that the United States is immune to suits without express consent, the Tenth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that claims under the Tucker Act for more than $10,000 are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court

McNeil v. Harvey

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2018

Circuit has not addressed whether judicial immunity extends to equitable relief and Defendants did not raise this issue in their motion, judges acting in their judicial capacity, as here, are likely to be absolutely immune … First, Defendants were clearly acting within their judicial capacities when they dismissed Plaintiffs’ underlying lawsuits.

Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Filmon X, LLC

150 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2015

The regulations establish that § 111 is “clearly directed at localized transmission services.” See, e.g., 57 Fed. Reg. at 3290. … Nearly-Simultaneous Retransmissions To establish a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiffs must establish that they own valid copyrights over the broadcast programming and that any of their exclusive rights

Zacharias v. McGrath

105 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 1952

This claim of statutory immunity is based upon Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 213 (b), supra, and the regulation, (8 Code of Federal Regulations) prescribed pursuant thereto. … permit was intended merely as convenient, but not essential, evidence to establish such right.

Cable News Network v. Anderson

723 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1989

It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought … and as to which the acts of the appellants, under the circumstances, did not breach the limits of legislative immunity.”

Micula v. Government of Romania

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2019

Once a plaintiff establishes as a threshold matter that an exception applies, “the burden of proof in establishing the inapplicability of these exceptions is upon the party claiming immunity.” Transamerican S.S. … The court accepts, for present purposes, that the Commission qualifies as a “sovereign” under these doctrines. Cf. European Cmty. v.

Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2024

bench trial on December 3, 4, and 6, 2018, and their family 3 The Court reiterates some of the background section from its [159] December 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion. 4 The Court required additional “information to establish … These attempts bring Iran within the terrorist exception to foreign sovereign immunity.”)

Virginia Professional Standards Review Foundation v. Blumenthal

466 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 1979

Plaintiff organizations are clearly “charitable” within the meaning of the statute, 9 and the government so acknowledges. … The Institute engaged in extensive legislative lobbying activities, which the court found was “clearly incompatible with the spirit and purpose of the exempting statute.” 16 .