Case law

Louise Trauma Center LLC v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2023

And the Court observed in this case that the Center “largely failed” to “clearly state its arguments and provide relevant caselaw as support.” Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC, 2022 WL 1081097, at *8 n.7; see also counsel.” … Even if this evidence were persuasive, the Center must produce evidence “in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits” to establish the reasonableness of its requested rates. Eley v.

Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Heckler

602 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1985

These guidelines clearly applied specifically to the intermediate unit, as required by the regulation. … Medicare encourages providers to establish "funded depreciation” accounts to be used for capital expenditures. 42 C.F.R. § 405.415 (e).

Garnes El v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2012

However, it is well-established that the 14 District of Columbia can bear no liability for the decisions of the U.S. Marshals responsible for 15 prisoner supervision. … Defendants dispute this assertion, noting that 1 in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff clearly links his §1983 claims with his arrests, and 2 3 his ADA claims with his court appearances, and that he does not

Federal Trade Commission v. Bisaro

757 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2010

Magistrate Judge Kay also concluded that Respondent’s status as the CEO and President of Watson does not immunize him from being deposed. … If this were a civil action, the FTC would clearly have authority to depose Respondent in order to determine whether or not he knows anything about this issue.

Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.

471 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2007

(“ARP”), to provide all testimony and produce all documents, including those claimed to be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity as to any communications by and between ARP, and/or its counsel … TWW further submits that “TWW and ARP repeatedly and clearly expressed the requisite intent, dating back to 2000.” Id.

Peterson v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC

134 F. Supp. 3d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2015

Circuit "has not established whether the standard ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 should be ‘recklessness’ or the more stringent ‘bad faith.’ " LaPrade v. … Under appropriate circumstances, Cingular Wireless may transfer the employee to a non-driving job if one is available for which the employee is qualified.”), ECF No. 22-1 (emphasis in the original).

Geier v. Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.

983 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2013

. §§ 300aa- 1–34, established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. … Cl. 1 The MMR vaccine is an immunization shot against measles, mumps, and rubella. 3 Spec. Mstr. Sept. 22, 2011).

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

That is well established, but does not answer the question in this case. … The government does not appear to dispute that the first two requirements are satisfied, and they clearly are.

Lyles v. District of Columbia

777 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2011

Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included the evaluation and assessment of DMH personnel from 1994 to 2000, which matched the duties of the new position. (Id.) … Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included evaluation of community-based sites and provision of clinical services to the mentally ill, both duties required by the new

Gilliland v. Astrue

67 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2014

In the third step, a claimant qualifies for benefits if her impairment (s) meet (s) or equal (s) an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. … In Defendant's Motion, Defendant points out what is clearly a mistake: On a lengthy form dated March 10, 1986, Plaintiff wrote that he first saw Dr.

Hamilton v. Nolan (In Re Nolan)

220 B.R. 727 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 1998

accommodation could be made, 2) he was qualified for the position, 3) he was adversely treated, and 4) others not in the same protected class were treated more favorably. … These two cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar in which neither willfulness nor maliciousness on the part of the debtor has been litigated.

Williams v. United American Security LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2025

Code § 32-1001 et seq., to establish the higher wages plaintiff claims are owed in this case. … Plaintiff’s Duties at the Al Jazeera Building Qualify Her as a “Security Officer” as a Matter of Law.

Eichberg v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

273 F. 886 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1921

The Emergency Fleet Corporation is not such an agency of the government as to render it immune from suit. United States v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491 , 41 Sup. Ct. 165, 65 L. Ed. —, present term. … This court has repeatedly held that general allegations of error, without specifying the particular points to which the exceptions are directed, are clearly insufficient.

Hampton v. Comey

139 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2015

In assessing whether a plaintiff has established municipal liability under Monell, a court must first determine whether there has been a constitutional violation. Baker v. … He argues that “[b]oth Defendants . . . signed the Agreement, knowing there has been a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges or immunities secured or

Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

810 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2011

According to plaintiff, the first sentence of the summary “contain[ed] numerous false facts all of which contextually were clearly libelous per se.” Id. ¶ 8. On July 3, 2007, plaintiff sent a letter to Paul N. … Moreover, the published statements do not qualify for protection under the fair reporting privilege. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ cross-motions [Dkt. # 6, 22] are DENIED.

Lebidine v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2025

Lebidine remained qualified for a promotion to Major General in light of the Inspector General’s findings. ECF No. 1 ¶ 35; ECF No. 17-1, at 4, 19-20. Mr. … § 14311 did apply to [him],” ECF No. 16, at 4, that assertion is clearly belied by the record.

Holmes v. University of the District of Columbia

244 F. Supp. 3d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2017

Harrison responded that she needed to make sure Holmes was not “abusing her leave”— notwithstanding that Holmes was clearly pregnant and that the director of human resources had approved her request for leave to attend … Were the University correct, any time an employer approved an employee’s DCFMLA-leave, but refused to reinstate that employee when the leave came to an end, the employer would be immune from liability.

Stotter v. United States Agency for International Development

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2020

So, for example, even when the requested records do not themselves qualify as “personnel” files, “[t]he names and contact information of federal employees are the type of information that is eligible for withholding under … Compl. ¶ 13)—qualifies as “confidential” information for the purpose of Exemption 4. See Pub.

Fremstad v. Center for Economic and Policy Research

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2026

Co., 817 F.2d 536, 538 (9th Cir. 1987) (“California’s defamation law establishes nonnegotiable rights and obligations independent of any labor contract.”); Hennegan Co. v. … Acknowledging that Fremstad’s claim arises from law rather than the terms of the CBA, the defendants contend that, because “Fremstad’s defamation claim falls clearly within the framework and provisions of the CBA” and therefore

Loumiet v. United States of America

106 F. Supp. 3d 219 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2015

The Court dismissed, in their entirety, all of Plaintiff’s remaining FTCA claims, except for invasion of privacy, because they arose out of Plaintiff’s defamation claim and the FTCA’s waiver of immunity does not apply to … LEGAL STANDARD To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claim. Moms Against Mercury v.