Case law

Caldwell v. District of Columbia

201 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2001

The burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to establish all elements of his damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plaintiff must prove his damages with reasonable certainty. … Walden’s testimony at trial was that his testimony that Plaintiffs immune system had been compromised by the conditions of his confinement did not meet the Daubert test.

United States v. Monzel

746 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2010

Section 1605(a)(7) provides an exception to sovereign immunity in cases in which money damages are sought for injury or death “caused by” certain acts. … Because Defendant has failed to establish that it would be appropriate to grant him discovery of the information he seeks, his request is denied.

Duke v. Cmty. Health Connections, Inc.

355 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2019

Discussion Courts do not have jurisdiction over claims against the federal government, except where the government has expressly waived its immunity. See United States v. … For this reason, we have reversed dismissals where the applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine depended upon factual questions not clearly resolved in the pleadings.

Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

250 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 1966

As a matter of fact, it would probably be impossible to find immediately a sufficient number of qualified employees to fill the requirements that would be artificially created. … The defendants rely on two cases, which however are clearly distinguishable. In Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W. R.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

926 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2013

EPA has clearly established in this record that it was considering options to reduce the hostility and other problems Dr. Hammer perceived in his workplace and that Dr. … interest in non-disclosure against any qualifying public interest in disclosure.

Wasim v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2009

[a]l[-]Qaeda.”); id. at 12 (“The AUMF also contains no express authorization for military detention; its focus is clearly on the use of military force.”); id. at 17 (“[E]ven if Congress has authorized the use of lethal … The onus should therefore rest on the detaining party to establish that the civilian in question has actually directly participated in hostilities.

United States v. Riggins

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2020

immunity even if the conditions could be found to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Circuit indicated further that the threshold for establishing a constitutional violation is “clearly lower” for pretrial detainees than for convicted prisoners.

Alinejad v. Iran, the Islamic Republic of

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2023

The fourth requirement—that Defendant is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the FSIA—merits further analysis. … The State Department is clearly a public office. See, e.g., 30B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 6882 (2023 ed.) (noting that Rule 803(8) applies to federal offices and agencies).

Bailey v. Ebbert

218 F. Supp. 3d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 2016

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State … Petitioner does not qualify for equitable tolling.

Pleasants v. Allbaugh

208 F.R.D. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2002

Confronted with this confusing record, I will deny plaintiffs motion to compel a further response to document request # 6 without prejudice to plaintiff establishing more clearly what information in the Merit Promotion File … Plaintiff clearly has the right to information that contradicts defendant’s claim that the hiring or promotion freezes justified the manner in which plaintiff was treated.

Jarmon v. Powell

208 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2002

Lee subsequently concluded that vacancy announcement # 98-91A failed to specify clearly that the selectee would be permitted to telecommute, or work from another location. Id. ¶ 3. Mr. … In order to establish a prima facie case for non-promotion, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that he applied for, and was qualified for, a position that he did not receive. See Freeman v.

Freedom Watch, Inc. v. McAleenan

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2020

To establish subject matter jurisdiction, “[t]he plaintiff ‘must clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating each element’” of standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. … Defendant rejects these claims, arguing that Freedom Watch has not established that it is a membership organization that can qualify for associational standing. 8 Def.’s Reply 6–8.

California Clinical Laboratory Association v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services

104 F. Supp. 3d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2015

Moreover, the alleged duty must be “‘ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. … This argument is clearly speculative and entirely unsupported, and thus manifestly insufficient to establish clearly and undisputedly that the cited statutory provisions give rise to any duties owed to CCLA or 7 Plaintiffs

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Joan M. Wilbon

960 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2013

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … However, the facts of Sallie are clearly distinguishable from this case.

Law v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2003

This payment to otherwise qualified pilots who cannot be promoted due to the Age 60 Rule is commonly referred to as “pay protection.” … This does not prevent the pilot from being awarded the higher status on his current equipment if previously qualified in that status.

Stewart v. Federal Communications Commission

177 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2016

At this stage in the case, the parties have yet to undertake any discovery, and there is no record to clearly ascertain what exactly Plaintiff complained of to Mr. … Plaintiff also has not established that she was qualified for a GS-13 position because Plaintiff has not alleged “that all of her responsibilities were [GS-13] responsibilities.” Id.

United States Ex Rel. Scollick v. Narula

215 F. Supp. 3d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2016

It alleges that OST never qualified for SDVOSB or HUBZone status and was not a small business enterprise. Id. at ¶ 45–47. … It states that Parekh, Narula, and Madan established CSG as a front company for the purpose of allowing them to bid on and obtain SDVOSB set-aside contracts, that they established CSG with the intent to falsely identify

Marra v. Papandreou

59 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 1999

In rare circumstances, however, where the remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsatisfactory, the other forum may not be an adequate alternative .... … The claim that a license was unlawfully revoked plainly qualifies as “a matter ... concerning a license.” In short, the language of the clause is not ambiguous.

Singh v. George Washington University

368 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2005

To establish a violation of this provision, plaintiff must prove: “(1) that she has a disability; (2) that she is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) that she was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination … Otherwise qualified “A handicapped or disabled person is ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate in a program if she can meet its necessary requirements with reasonable accommodation.” Kaltenberger v.

Brookens v. Chao

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2009

Cir. 1996), plaintiff has failed to establish any grounds 2 Defendant filed his notice of appeal of the Court’s judgment on July 16, 2009, after having filed the instant motion. … However, that is clearly not the case. See, e.g., Brookens v. Solis, No. 08-5527, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10048, *1-*2 (D.C. Cir. May 8, 2009) (per curiam) (“Brookens I”); Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8, 10-11 (D.C.