Case law

Gulf Restoration Network, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2010

Similarly, the affidavits in this case do not clearly define when or how Plaintiffs would be affected. … This reasoning fails to meet the standard established in DRG Funding.

Bigwood v. Defense Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2011

This statute of limitations “is a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Spannaus, 824 F.2d at 55. … Accordingly, the plaintiff has not established a causal nexus between the filing of his complaint and the defendant’s release of documents as necessary to establish his eligibility for attorney’s fees; therefore, the court

White v. Nicholson

541 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2008

Did the AOPG Establish a Substantive Rule? Neither the language nor the context of the AOPG suggests that it was intended to establish a binding rule of decision. … It is tentative and self-qualifying: that there are “presently no firm data” does not bind agency adjudicators to take a particular position in each case before them, but instead allows for evolution in the state of medical

Qihui Huang v. Wheeler

215 F. Supp. 3d 100 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2016

This count likewise falls well shy of establishing a hostile work environment. … Settles, 429 F.3d at 1105 (explaining assertion of Section 1983 claim against federal entity presents jurisdictional defect going to sovereign immunity of United States).

Saunders v. Davis

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2016

Saunders, who bears the burden of establishing the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, points to two bases for his claim against Secretary Perez. First, Mr. … Saunders has failed to meet his burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction and to establish a waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Mr.

United States v. Sutton

803 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2011

Although it is not clearly articulated, Mr. … Sutton cannot establish that he suffered any prejudice as a result of his counsel’s purported errors. First, Mr.

NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. Brock

619 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 1985

Third, if the DOL is in contempt, then the Court must determine whether the defendants come within the ambit of the sovereign immunity doctrine and, as a consequence, are immune from the civil contempt sanction of paying … Its terms, as indicated above, clearly spell out what actions the defendants are enjoined from taking.

Bartolomeo v. United States

316 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2018

Conclusion For the reasons above, petitioner does not qualify as a career offender. … Petitioner's representations notwithstanding, the magistrate judge nowhere uses the phrase "career offender" and was clearly not contemplating future sentencing enhancements in March 1997.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President

587 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2008

Rather, it provides that all materials that were subject to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 , prior to the passage of the PRA remain subject to the FOIA and do not qualify as “presidential records.” … For this reason, the court also rejects defendants’ argument that "because no cause of action exists to order the restoration of records, plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity as well." Mot.

Gretton Limited v. Republic of Uzbekistan

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2019

In response to a motion to dismiss for improper service, “[t]he party on whose behalf service is made has the burden of establishing its validity when challenged; to do so, he must demonstrate that the procedure employed … Dismissal is improper because, even on Uzbekistan’s facts, Gretton’s attempt at service “came very close to satisfying the Act’s requirements,” and thus “[t]here clearly ‘exists a reasonable prospect that service can be

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

850 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2012

In order to qualify as a prevailing party, there must be an “alteration in the legal relationship of the parties” and this alteration must be the result of formal judicial action. Lopez v. District of Columbia, 383 F. … In none of these cases, however, did the courts consider the sovereign immunity question. See also Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 329 F.

Glass v. LaHood

786 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2011

Clearly, this cannot suffice to withstand a motion for summary judgment. … It is now well-established that where, as here, an employer has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatoiy reason for its actions, the district court should bypass the question of whether the plaintiff has established a prima

Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan

568 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 1983

Plaintiffs maintain that the U.S.sponsored raids violate fundamental human rights established under international law and the U.S. Constitution. … Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , 86 S.Ct. 1130 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), as grounds for establish *599 ing subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. 3 II.

Jones v. Greenspan

402 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2005

Id. at 12 (noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … Minor changes in work-related duties or opportunities do not qualify as actionable injuries unless accompanied by adverse changes in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Id. at 1135.

St. Marys Regional Medical Center v. Xavier Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2024

Apart from the budget neutrality adjustments, Congress also immunized “the establishment of diagnosis-related groups, . . . the methodology for the classification of discharges within such groups, and . . . the appropriate … The court recognized that “the results of the data collection process are used to establish” the ultimate payment amounts, which were statutorily immunized from judicial or administrative review.

Peavey v. Gonzalez

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2009

Peavey does not expressly invoke any waiver of sovereign immunity. … The United States has waived its immunity from suit for certain torts under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, however, does not apply to constitutional tort claims.

Deghayes v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2014

In contrast to Al Warafi, Petitioner does not claim to fit within one of the clearly- defined detention categories listed in Army Regulation 190-8. … Circuit nonetheless considered whether he qualified as a medic under Army Regulation 190-8, see Al Warafi II, 716 F.3d at 627- 29.

State of Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Medicaid & Medical Assistance v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

272 F. Supp. 3d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2017

Under the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq., “providers are reimbursed for the cost of the services they provide to qualified Medicare beneficiaries” based on agreements with HHS. … Plaintiff has espoused no theory as to how Defendants have waived their sovereign immunity for money damages, rather than equitable relief. United States v.

Democratic National Committee v. McCord

356 F. Supp. 1394 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 1973

Further, it is well established that if the requested material is relevant, discovery should be allowed without regard to admissibility at trial. 5 The fact that the materials requested cover an extended period of time and … Such would clearly be improper under the Branzburg decision.

Broadgate Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

730 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2010

Plaintiffs TechServe and ASA are not-for-profit membership corporations that qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 (6), which supply temporary employees to other businesses. … On its face, then, the Memorandum clearly does not purport to establish a new substantive rule with binding effect.