Case law

Turner v. Nicholson

824 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2011

The letters made it apparent to the recipients that the plaintiff felt that he was more qualified for the position than Lee, who had only recently joined the Pathology Service. … “A court cannot infer a waiver of sovereign immunity; it ‘must be unequivocally expressed.’” Id. at 52-53 (quoting Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538).

Cartner v. Davis

988 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2013

This Court dismissed the case on the ground of judicial immunity. See id. … A close relative, “such as a parent, spouse, or sibling, who maintain[s] a close personal relationship with the aggrieved” could qualify as a next friend. Davis v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 273, 275 (N.D.

Valentino v. United States Postal Service

511 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1981

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination in promotion, plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a group protected by Title VII; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking … Defendant’s Essential Vacancy data are clearly probative.

Wilson v. Conklin

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2024

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) Claims Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction over his FTCA claims. … This sovereign immunity applies to the United States, its agencies, components, and employees. See United States v.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2023

DISCUSSION The parties do not dispute that the Crime Control Act’s Title I confidentiality provision is an exemption that qualifies for withholding under FOIA’s Exemption 3—rightfully so, because it undoubtedly … “Of this title” most clearly refers to Title I, so the plain text of the provision states that its confidentiality requirement only applies to information “furnished under” Title I.

Newman v. Kelly

848 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

TO THE EXTENT THE DEFENDANTS’ REGULATIONS ESTABLISH LEVEL OF CARE DISTINCTIONS IN THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF NURSING FACILITIES, THOSE REGULATIONS ARE PREEMPTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL SCHEME WHICH ESTABLISHES A … THE HCFA LETTER ADVISING THE DEFENDANTS ON TRANSFER POLICY CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT, AS THE FEDERAL AGENCY PRINCIPALLY CHARGED WITH REGULATING NURSING FACILITIES, THE HCFA INTERPRETS THE FEDERAL LAW AS MANDATING A SINGLE

United States v. Edelin

128 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2001

The government clearly stated that disclosure of evidence to the defendants has gone beyond the limits required by the law. … The finding of dangerousness in Section II, supra, clearly establishes that there is reason to believe the jury needs protection. The defendants have shown that they are willing to interfere with the judicial process.

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.”)

Battle v. Rubin

121 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2000

See In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 880 F.2d 1439 (D.C.Cir.1989). B. Late Filing of Administrative Complaint 1. … Furthermore, the defendant was clearly on notice from the plaintiff’s complaint that the plaintiff might well assert this justification for tolling.

Omni Bridgeway Limited v. Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy of the Republic of Albania

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2026

“The [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] prescribes four methods of service, in descending order of preference. … ECF 1 The court will analyze notice under both Section 1608(a) and 1608(b) because, as the court noted in its memorandum opinion, MIE and AKBN each qualify as a “foreign state” under the Act, but Albpetrol is an agency

Townsend v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

746 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 1990

It is well-established that “in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: 1) that she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; 2) that the employer took an adverse personnel action; … Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 254-55 & n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 1094 & n. 9, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (to satisfy its intermediate burden of rebutting the presumption of discrimination, the employer "must clearly set forth, through

National Treasury Employees Union v. Horner

654 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 1987

Read in context, the court’s “clearly establish” test for retroactive promotions is at best qualified dicta. … Finally, even if this court were to adopt the Boese court’s “clearly establish” test, plaintiffs could not satisfy it here.

Levin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

529 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2007

“The FSIA provides that personal jurisdiction over defendants will exist where Plaintiff establishes the applicability of an exception to immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1604 , § 1605, or § 1607 and service of process has … This conduct “quite easily qualifies as extreme and outrageous.” Jenco, 154 F.Supp.2d at 35 . As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Mr.

Egei v. Napolitano

192 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2016

Such a rule, it reasoned, “would encourage the abuse of Title VII and the proceedings that it establishes.” Id. … See, e.g., Glover, 170 F.3d at 414 (“Our holding does not permit employees to immunize improper behavior simply by filing an EEOC complaint.”).

Roberds v. Markham

81 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 1948

It is clearly an adversary proceeding, since the defendants are -heirs o-f -the original grantor, who claim that the property reverts to them in the event of a termination of its use f-or church purposes. … Qualified, determinable, or defeasible fees were known at common law and are recognized in the District of Columbia, Cowell v.

Bell v. Executive Committee of the United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Plan for Employees

191 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2002

Their status as administrator may well qualify them automatically as fiduciaries in this instance”); Kayes v. … Defendants contend that the Order merely established a timeframe within which the parties could move for leave of court to amend their pleadings.

Graffius v. Mansfield

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2009

Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. … Cir. 2008) (establishing this rule of abandoning the burden-shifting analysis for a discrimination 16 In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show “(1) that she engaged

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

514 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2007

Indeed, compelling DOJ to search for documents, which by plaintiffs very description qualifies them for an exemption under FOIA, strikes this Court as an unreasonable and wasteful expenditure of *11 government resources. … Clearly, if the Court finds that these exemptions do not apply, the records will be produced.

Community Oncology Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2024

Under the Medicare Act, the Secretary of HHS must use formal rulemaking to establish a “rule, requirement, or other statement of policy . . . that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing . . . the … For example, when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explain that an individual in a foreign country (without an international agreement with the United States) may be served a copy of the complaint “personally,” it clearly

In Re All Assets Held in Account Jw3083094 in the Name of Carinalli, S.A. at Jefferies, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2025

Specifically, they argue that: (1) the Government cannot establish “dual forfeitability”; (2) the Government cannot establish what Respondents call “dual restrainability”; and (3) the Court should reject any restraining … Cir. 1992) (“[T]he fact that the defendant property had been seized after an illegal search does not ‘immunize’ it from forfeiture, any more than a defendant illegally arrested is immunized from prosecution.”); see also