Case law

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Commerce

196 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2001

The necessity of completing that discovery easily satisfies the obligation of establishing the extraordinary justification which forces the work product privilege to yield. … That fact alone does not establish that the document would reveal the attorney’s thought process or evaluation of the case.

Winslow v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

251 F.R.D. 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2008

The Amendment was held on November 9, 1990, to be a valid waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity against prejudgment interest. Brown v. Sec’y of Army, 918 F.2d 214, 218 (D.C.Cir.1990). . … Moreover, the Ostemeck footnote was a forward-looking statement by a unanimous Court, intended to establish a straightforward rule to guide the course of litigation in future cases.”); Pogor v.

Coleman v. District of Columbia

893 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2012

Lee committed no constitutional violation against plaintiff, it does not address defendant’s alternative argument that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity because any violation he committed was not clearly established at … The plaintiff carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation. Johnson, 935 A.2d at 1118.

In Re Subpoena to Goldberg

693 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 2010

News World Commc'ns, Inc., 903 F.2d 29 (D.C.Cir. 1990) ("But the reporter's privilege is a qualified one. … When judged by this calculus, and a heightened regard for the burden to be imposed upon a third party, the motion to compel clearly fails. B.

In Re: Bryan S. Ross

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2019

Apr. 2, 2003), and has held that “[a] party seeking summary disposition bears the heavy burden of establishing that the merits of his case are so clear that expedited action is justified,” Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. … Cir. 2014) (“A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed under a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard. . . . By contrast, ‘a district court reviews questions of law de novo on appeal.’” (citations omitted)).

Roberts v. Napolitano

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2011

To qualify as an “order” reviewable under § 46110, an agency determination must be final, i.e., “it ‘must determine rights or obligations or give rise to legal consequences.’” Safe Extensions, Inc. v. … Plaintiffs have thus failed to establish that their claim is not subject to the inescapable- intertwinement doctrine. C.

Moeller v. LaFleur

246 F. Supp. 3d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

In response to a supplemental question for the record posed by Senator Lee, Chairman Bay offered an interpretation of the civil penalty enforcement statute: This statutory provision clearly provides that … Plaintiff’s final ground for establishing pretext – that he was significantly more qualified than the candidates who received interviews – is also insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to

Zaidan v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2018

Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[A] plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.”). … Statutes that waive sovereign immunity are strictly construed and any doubt or ambiguity is resolved in favor of immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996).

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

768 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2011

This testimony establishes that while in Iran, General Oveissi owned assets totaling roughly $749,000,000. Id. … Plaintiff’s loss of his beloved grandfather undoubtedly qualifies under this standard. 12 . Plaintiff also seeks pre-judgment interest on his solatium damages. Damage Estimate at 15-16. This request will be denied.

New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

208 F. Supp. 3d 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2016

As an initial matter, it has not been established that the dashing of these individuals’ hope that the chimpanzees would be sent to a sanctuary actually qualifies as an “aesthetic” injury, and this Court doubts the applicability … Plaintiffs’ dashed-hopes theory of injury fails to establish Article III standing on another ground as well: even if the thwarting of one’s hope of a different outcome qualifies as a cognizable injury, the hope that was

Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2025

And it is redressable by the order Jenner seeks: not immunity from investigation, but immunity from investigation “made pursuant to Section 4.” Proposed Order [ECF No. 132-1] at 3–4. … While these rights are of course qualified—by “the authority of trial courts to establish criteria for admitting lawyers to argue before them” for one, see Gonzalez- Lopez, 548 U.S. at 151, and the imperative of avoiding

Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius

775 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2011

Specifically, the plaintiffs find fault with the use of qualifier terms like “adequate,” “suitable,” “qualified,” and “appropriate.” See Pis.’ Mem. at 23-26. … There are clearly many applications of the challenged GMP regulations under which the regulations would not be impermissibly vague.

McKenzie v. Jefferson

566 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1983

Clearly, the plaintiff, in attempting to vacate the decision of the hearing officer has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Hearing Officer’s determination should be set aside and that a … school nurse or other qualified person.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.13 (b)(10).

Beacon Associates, Inc. v. Apprio, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2018

Although Apprio tries to cabin the application of Armour and Nalco to the principle of sovereign immunity, neither case relies on the mere fact of sovereign immunity, but rather on the fact that damages are unrecoverable … The Equities Favor Beacon The equities in this case clearly favor Beacon.

Bradshaw v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

856 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2012

See OPM Determination Letter, ECF No. 8-3, at 6 (“In summary, the medical evidence in file did not establish that you had disabling medical conditions/symptoms. … To the contrary, the Complaint states clearly that the plaintiff had the opportunity to submit medical evidence to support his application for disability retirement benefits. Compl. ¶ 47.

Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

7 F. Supp. 3d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2013

Non-profit organizations which do not qualify for this exemption may, however, qualify for an accommodation with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement if they are “eligible organizations” under the regulations … A group health plan . . . qualifies for the [religious employer] exemption if, among other qualifications, the plan is established and maintained by an employer that primarily employs persons who share

United States Ex Rel. J. Cooper & Associates, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Group, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2006

frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for the purposes of harassment. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (d)(4). … This fact alone, however, does not assist the plaintiff in meeting the burden of establishing the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

MacKay v. Hoffman

403 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1975

Selections were to be made from both zones of consideration, but only those officers deemed best qualified, regardless of zone, could be recommended for promotion. See A.R. 624-100, *469 ¶ 18a(l). … It was contemplated that 85% of the Board’s recommendations would come from the primary zone and 15% from the secondary zone, subject, of course, to the “best qualified” standard.

Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

696 F. Supp. 685 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 1988

Crocker’s anxious desire to work for Piedmont is clearly evident in the letter. Id. … The term “update” is clearly vague: for example, it could simply mean a brief communication asking that the previously submitted application be kept on file (in which case Crocker was clearly in compliance); or it could require

Baumann v. District of Columbia

744 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

disclosure to a public body that qualifies as protected under the DCWPA. … Council knows how to create a private right of action when it wants to, and it clearly chose not to create one here.