Case law

Advancement Project v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2021

See Access Reps., 926 F.2d at 1195 (“A document from a junior to a senior is likely to reflect his or her own subjective opinions and will clearly have no binding effect on the recipient.”); see also, e.g. … A record must therefore meet three requirements to qualify for the exemption. First, it must have been “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Id.

Pettaway v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

Even more plainly, the section of the Policy describing the participant’s rights under the ERISA clearly designates the Academy as the plan administrator. Id., at A.R. 138. … Thus, the SB Administrators also qualifies as a fiduciary by virtue of its role as the claims processor. See Wright, 618 F.

West v. Jackson

448 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2006

HUD clearly has not violated FOIA. Mr. West’s March 2005 request sought federal statutes, regulations, and policies regarding HUD Section 8 housing. … To uphold non-disclosure under Exemption 3, there must be a qualifying disclosure-prohibiting statute and the logical inclusion of the withheld records within the scope and coverage of that statute. Pub.

Le v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2025

At the time of Le’s visa petition, USCIS’s regulation required a minimum $500,000 investment in a “targeted employment area” to qualify. See 8 C.F.R. … Here, the agency’s misstatements do not matter because the agency clearly gave Le a way out of any requirement to show the source of VNT Trading’s funds.

Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Burgum

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2025

That provision immunizes gaming on “lands . . . taken into trust as part of . . . the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.” 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). … In its January letter, Interior declared that the Vallejo parcel “qualifie[d] as restored lands.” A.R. at SV-2.

Griffin v. Gk Intelligent Sys., Inc.

196 F.R.D. 298 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2000

. 4 Clearly, different members of the purported class will have “conflicting incentives in shaping the evidence.” … Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ belated attempt to recharacterize their complaint as one involving primarily a failure to disclose, the Second Amended Complaint establishes clearly that this is predominantly a misrepresentation

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton

223 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2002

The DOI argued that several federal laws had extinguished the tribal form of government, established by the Creeks in their 1867 Constitution, which established the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Creek … Defendants also make the argument that the review of this letter by the Court would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity because, ''[a]s a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit except when it consents to

Hynes v. Massanari

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2009

Second, the ALJ noted that the plaintiff’s heart condition had clearly improved from its previous severity. Id. at 17. … This record was clearly sufficient to establish “the current severity of [the plaintiff’s] impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.919a(a)(2)(b)(5).

Stellacom, Inc. v. United States

783 F. Supp. 647 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1992

Here, Stellacom’s amended complaint clearly alleges that it has lost the ability to claim that it is a small business under all relevant SIC codes, thus effectively and completely precluding it from the opportunity to bid … Circuit outlined the importance of compliance with the procedures established by Local Rule 108(h) and its predecessor rule, Local Rule l-9(h).

Bennett v. Ridge

321 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2004

You clearly had resigned from DOD after you received a decision of removal from your position and the agency. Thus, it is my decision to separate you from the TSA based on your unsuitability for your position. … not credit the position taken by the government in briefs filed with the Courts that the employment determinations were made in the interest of national security and thus exempt from the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity

Yaghobi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2025

Whether a motion to dismiss is facial or factual, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. … Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., was “committed to agency 7 discretion by law,” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), and thus beyond the waiver of sovereign immunity

Core VCT PLC v. Hensley

89 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

Nevertheless, since defendant had “clearly established a new domicile in France in 1989 and then Monaco in 1998,” the “continuing'domicile rule” dictated that “the only way that [defendant] could be a domiciliary of Illinois … As the Magistrate Judge explained, defendant lives “a transient lifestyle, and clearly has for several decades.” (Id. at 25.)

United States v. Sum of $70,990,605

4 F. Supp. 3d 209 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2014

Thus, where, as here, “a criminal investigation and a civil forfeiture action have common facts, similar alleged violations and some common parties, the actions are clearly related.” United States v. … Supp. 2d 23, 33 (D.D.C. 2001) (“Criminal defendants are only entitled to statements of non- testifying witnesses or co-conspirators if those statements qualify as Brady material.”).

Coe v. Mathews

426 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 23, 1976

However, in order to qualify for substantial federal reimbursement of its AFDC expenditures, a state must operate its program under a state plan approved by the Secretary of HEW as meeting all applicable federal statutory … The language of those sections clearly states that invocation of the exception by AFDC applicants or recipients and determinations of eligibility by state IV-A agencies are contingent upon the terms of HEW standards defining

Levesque v. Schroder Inv. Mgmt. N. Am., Inc.

368 F. Supp. 3d 302 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2019

Under the 2013 Plan, employees qualified for two kinds of incentive-based compensation schemes: quantitative and qualitative. … While neither party raises this material fact, the 2013 Plan clearly states that "[t]he Plan shall be governed by New York law".

Webster v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2020

To qualify under any of the categories, the information at issue must first meet a threshold requirement: that it was “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Id. … Cir. 1984) (finding that “confidential information supplied by foreign and local law enforcement agencies is clearly within the purview of Exemption 7(D)”). c.

Nixon v. Sampson

389 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1975

These include: Department of State, established in 1789, the Department of the Treasury, established in 1789; the Department of Justice, established in 1870; the Post Office Department, established in 1872 (as part of the … established in 1913; the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, established in 1953; the Department of Housing and Urban Development, established in 1965; and the Department of Transportation, established in 1966.

Encinas v. J.J. Drywall Corporation

265 F.R.D. 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2010

Plaintiffs also have retained qualified class counsel. … - 18 - must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class

Neuman v. United States of America

70 F. Supp. 3d 416 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2014

Exemption 6 permits the withholding of “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). … But a statement related to page length alone hardly qualifies as the kind of “specific factual description of each document sought,” Smith v. DOL, 798 F.

Sieverding v. American Bar Ass'n

439 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2006

Section 1983 applies to “[e]very- person” who,, under color of state law, deprives a citizen. of “any rights, privileges, .and immunities secured by the federal Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C., § 1983 . … Subsection (b) qualifies the reach of the statute by noting that “[w]hen jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against