Case law

Adams v. United States

796 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

But, as defendants point out, “ ‘ [t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire’ and ‘more than a unilateral expectation of it. … See Jones, 713 F.Supp.2d at 37 (“Although individuals do have a protected property interest in legal causes of action, such as those for age discrimination, ‘the State remains free to create substantive defenses or immunities

Sturm v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

And, because Sturm’s “Depressive Disorder did not separately qualify for a disability rating of 30% or greater, the Board determined [Sturm] did not qualify for placement on the disability retirement list.” A.R. 4. … This is most clearly established by Dr. Bennett’s assignment of the Personality Disorder as the primary condition.”).

Diller Active, Inc. v. Schweiker

556 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 1983

The Manual directs intermediaries to first undertake surveys in order to establish the range of compensation paid to managers and administrators in comparable institutions, and cites some of the criteria to be considered … Faced with such an exorbitant claim, the Secretary’s decision to stay within the range of salaries found in existing guidelines was clearly reasonable.

Khudyan v. Republic of Armenia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2025

[and] may enforce a seemingly ambiguous award if the record clearly resolves the award’s meaning.” Trs. of the N.Y. State Nurses Ass’n Pension Plan v. White Oak Glob. … establishing the Court’s personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, namely by taking specific steps to effect service on the defendant.

Gordon v. District of Columbia

480 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Arthritis certainly qualifies as an impairment under the statutes. See Moore v. J.B. … Hunt Transport, Inc., 221 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.2000) (“Because rheumatoid arthritis is a physiological condition that affects the musculoskeletal system, it clearly qualifies as an impairment.”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (h)(

Empresa Cubana Exportadora v. Dept. of Treasury

606 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

Accordingly, the change in policy was clearly not arbitrary agency action. … Bancec contended that it should be able to collect on the letter of credit as a separate juridical entity but that it should not be subject to a set-off because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act immunizes an instrumentality

Gordon v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2010

Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Reply”). 2 the plaintiff was therefore “highly qualified … Supp. 2d 175, 177-79 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Because the language of the CAA provision at issue in this case clearly confers jurisdiction to this Court only if plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites to filing

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian

131 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2001

The Court finds that this contempt proceeding clearly is to vindicate the integrity of the Court. … The Order directed Bilzerian to document all of the assets he has received since January 1, 1997, not only those qualifying as “material” (a qualifier which Bilzerian leaves undefined).

Pappas v. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2024

DC argues, however, that Plaintiffs cannot establish numerosity because “whether each class member is a qualified individual under the ADA will be a separate and independent determination” leading to many “class[es] of … DC states that “a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) she was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the employer had notice of her disability, and (3) the employer denied her request

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

870 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2012

Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). … Because Exemption 7(C) “establishes a lower bar [than Exemption 6] for withholding material,” ACLU v. U.S.

Associated Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Castro

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2017

However, a court “should be loathe” to grant a motion for reconsideration “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” … Section 1702 may waive HUD’s sovereign immunity, but it is not an independent grant of jurisdiction. See Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 137 S.

M.J. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2019

Moreover, even if these wrap around services qualified, plaintiffs dispute that M.J.’s mother has refused these services. Id. … First, a court must determine whether the plaintiff establishes a predicate constitutional or statutory violation. Id.

Singletary v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2011

This is clearly not the result contemplated by the Supreme Court. See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 479. … The Court declared that governmental bodies are not wholly immune, and it also established the important principle that liability could not be vicarious.

Rahimi v. Lansing

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2020

facts,’ and the parties clearly dispute the nature of the positions challenged in Counts X [to] XII,” id. at 207–08. … However, contrary to the plaintiff’s position, the defendant is not challenging whether the plaintiff was qualified for the position; rather, he is simply arguing that “she was not as well-qualified as the individual[]

Massey v. Gray

85 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2015

Among other relief, see Compl. at 4, she demands “immediate employment” in a federal or District of Columbia government position for which she qualifies, id., and “$2.5 Million in Pun[i]tive and Real Damages,” id. at 3. … of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Express One International, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

814 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1993

That memo clearly stated the USPS’s contemporaneous position as to what would constitute a conflict of interest: We would regard Mr. … Maytan concluded that those steps were sufficient, even though they clearly did not meet the requirements he had included in his letter to Mr. Cole the previous day.

Alfa International Seafood, Inc. v. Pritzker

District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2017

Council, 2017 WL 1323530, at * 4 (holding that “[e]conomic harm to a business clearly constitutes an injury-in-fact”). … Opp’n at 8, but rather, one that is clearly defined and materially different from the Federal Defendants’ interests. Cf. Mem.

Lu v. Tillerson

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2018

Sept. 7, 2004) (finding court lacked “power to equitably toll the September 30 deadline established by the diversity visa statute”). … In the absence of an express waiver of sovereign immunity, Plaintiff has no capacity to seek $60,000. The Court must therefore also dismiss his money-damages claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Adams v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

They further allege that this loss of seniority will preclude them from piloting the types of large commercial aircraft that they were qualified to fly prior to turning sixty. … But, as defendants point out, “‘[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire’ and ‘more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Wood v. Ruppe

659 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 1987

In response to Wood’s complaint, the defendants moved for summary judgment on Wood’s claims against them in their individual capacities, arguing that they were entitled to absolute or, alternatively, qualified immunity. … In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued September 27,1985, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in that the defendants’ were entitled to qualified immunity.