Case law

Ruffin v. New Destination, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2011

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to judgment against Defendants on their FLSA and DCWPCL claims because the undisputed facts clearly show that they were not paid wages owed to them. … The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs qualified as employees under this “economic reality” test.

Ware v. Billington

344 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2004

Rather, “[t]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions, which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was … Moreover, plaintiff's argument that Bardak was only equally as qualified is legally insufficient, for the D.C.

Logsdon v. Baker

366 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 1973

As such, it would be clearly erroneous for this Court to permit this expert witness to render such opinion testimony. … Plaintiff cites no cases which establish her proposition and the Court has found none.

Energy Action Education Foundation v. Andrus

516 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1980

The OCS Act, as amended in 1978, provides the Secretary of Interior with authority to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder or bidders by competitive bidding, oil and gas leases on submerged lands of the outer … Further, the Court is convinced that plaintiffs have not clearly demonstrated that the public interest will be served by the issuance of an injunction.

Pollard v. Quest Diagnostics

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2009

To the contrary, as stated above, Quest has clearly explained that the Project Manager’s job was to “coordinate and maintain a new upgrade” to the LIS system. See Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 16 (emphasis added). … Accordingly, the Court cannot agree with Quest that Pollard has not established a materially adverse action.

Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

186 F.R.D. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 1999

Second, it prevents public confusion from premature disclosure of agency opinions before the agency established its final policy. … The party claiming privilege has the burden to establish its existence....

Church of Scientology v. Internal Revenue Service

569 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 1983

The Court concludes, therefore, that these “post-index” documents clearly constitute return information within the statutory definition. … Even assuming, arguendo that section 6103 must be viewed as a qualifying exempting statute under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3), see e.g. Chamberlain v.

Stern v. Small Business Administration

516 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 1980

Exemption 6 authorizes the withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. … Furthermore, the decisions of this court have established that information connected with professional relationships does not qualify for the exemption. Id., 642 F.2d at 574 .

Adionser v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2011

summary judgment, asserting that defendant has not shown that it conducted adequate searches for responsive documents, did not reasonably segregate non-exempt information from statutorily exempt information, and did not establish … To qualify for this exemption, a document "must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it."

Conservation Force v. Jewell

66 F. Supp. 3d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2014

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). … The privilege is also limited to documents that qualify as “deliberative,” meaning that “it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process.” Id.

Saunders v. Mills

172 F. Supp. 3d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2016

Saunders –– who was rated highly qualified –– and other black females (specifically, Mary Wilson and Sheila Clark) were not interviewed. Ms. … Clearly, the argument is wrong on the law.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2025

Those contentions 25 had gone so clearly without mention in the briefing that the court did not acknowledge them or any forfeiture issue at all in the original opinion … The rule is instead intended to help inspectors determine what qualifies as a violation in the first place.

National Coal Ass'n v. Clark

603 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 1984

Naartex clearly controls the “Circle West” cases. 7 In these cases, as in Naartex, the undisputed affidavits submitted by the private defendants establish that their only contacts with the District of Columbia were the maintenance … In addition to its jurisdictional adequacy (see n. 12, 13, and 14), the Montana court is clearly an adequate forum for an adjudication on the merits.

Eig Energy Fund Xiv, L.P. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2022

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act “The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country.” Saudi Arabia v. … “Once the defendant has asserted the jurisdictional defense of immunity under the FSIA, the court’s focus shifts to the [Act’s] exceptions to immunity . . . .” Phx. Consulting Inc. v.

United States v. Brewster

154 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 1957

This Court finds that the pertinency of the questions contained in the indictment has been established. … If subpoenas like these are to fail, the unions will be cloaked with absolute immunity and Congress must wait in the darkness until suspected union officers get around to volunteering confirmatory data.

United States v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2024

Burwell argues that he no longer qualifies for an enhanced sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson because his offense of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence … July 27, 2016) (“[E]xtorting money from a bank . . . clearly constitutes a separate crime that is not ‘armed bank robbery.’”) Govt.

Bobreski v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

284 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2003

Second, the plaintiff contends that EPA’s failure to comply with the ALJ subpoena amounts to an unlawful assertion of sovereign immunity. Id. at 11-13. … The text clearly does not grant the Secretary of Labor subpoena authority.

Berry v. McCarthy

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2018

Though it did not expressly reconcile these competing points, the Board was evidently persuaded that the latter prevailed and established causation. It recommended that Berry be granted a Purple Heart. … Even if not clearly incorrect, the denial is at least on shaky ground. As the Corrections Board observed, injuries caused by taking cover are not precisely like the examples stated in the Army regulations.

United States v. Clark

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2019

Walker immunity for his testimony, and the government declined to offer him immunity. §e_e_ June 20, 2016 Hr’g. Tr. at 25-33. … The procedural history of the case clearly establishes the reasonableness of this decision Ms. Roland assisted Mr. Clark only with resentencing and the appeal thereof. The Court resentenced Mr.

Muskelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 2019

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing reasonableness. See In re North, 59 F.3d 184, 189 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … Supp. 3d at 379 (“[T]he relevant inquiry is whether IDEA proceedings as a class of litigation qualify as ‘complex federal litigation.’”) (citation omitted).