Case law

Arnold v. the Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2011

The Court consolidated this suit—which was brought pursuant to the former “state-sponsored terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), and then re- filed under … Cir. 2008) (“[A] statute applies to a pending case only if the Congress clearly so provides.”), reversed on other grounds by Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 129 S. Ct. 2183 (2009).

National Ass'n for Home Care v. Shalala

135 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2001

To that end, the BBA required HCFA to establish an Interim Payment System (IPS). 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v)(1)(L). … Section 1395x(v)(1)(L)(v)(I) very clearly applies to *171 old agencies; section 1395x(v)(1)(L)(vi)(I) very clearly applies to new agencies.

United States v. Foster

566 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 1983

In sum, we conclude that the actions of Officer McKenzie-amounted to, at the very least, an investigative detention which qualified as a Fourth Amendment seizure of Foster’s person. … At that point, Foster clearly had reason to believe that he and the car would be searched, and the shotgun discovered.

Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2025

These harms are directly tied to Section 3, thereby establishing traceability. … And as Defendants’ counsel conceded at argument, the mere fact that the government has the right to exercise discretion does not immunize retaliatory intent.

Pederson v. Preston

250 F.R.D. 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2008

Plaintiff asserts that Selec-tee, a Hispanic female twelve years his junior, was a “less qualified but younger person” whose selection “was consistent with statements of [SBA’s] intentions to hire young examiners.” … Plaintiffs messages clearly sought to initiate a discussion rather than demand an immediate formal reply. (See Email from Pederson to Interrante (Feb. 21, 2008), Ex. C to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 1.)

United States v. Libby

432 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2006

This Court therefore cannot accept the proposition that the Circuit Court, by merely concluding that “Ahn failed to carry his burden,” established that in criminal cases a news reporter has a qualified First Amendment reporters … However, the argument as phrased clearly reveals that the defendant is on a discovery fishing expedition, which is an impermissible use of Rule 17(c).

Walker v. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America

569 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2008

This, she insists, qualifies as an interference with her “protected rights under § 510,” PL’s NYL Opp’n at 10-11, and with her “right to bring a civil action under ERISA § 502,” PL’s Ind. Opp’n at 14. … The court already explained in its previous memorandum opinions that all of the plaintiffs ERISA claims regarding her alleged misclassification as an independent contractor are time barred and that PhRMA clearly and unequivocally

Punt v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2023

Those seeking to obtain permanent residency through the EB-5 program must first file with USCIS an I-526 petition containing evidence of a qualifying investment. … On November 20, 2019, Punt filed an I-526 petition and provided evidence of his qualifying $500,000 investment to finance the Fouquet’s Hotel Tribeca Project. Compl. ¶ 1.

Fischer v. U.S. Department of Justice

596 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2009

Accordingly, these records clearly qualify as investigative records filed for law enforcement purposes and are therefore exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act. 14 Moreover, with exceptions not relevant here, the Privacy … For example, pages 29 and 30 are clearly the second and third pages of a teletype regarding the FBI’s criminal investigation into narcotics trafficking by plaintiff and others, while page 39 is clearly the third page of a

['Battle v. Truland Systems Corporation']

30 F. Supp. 3d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2014

Moreover, Plaintiff presents no evidence that Truland had any open positions for which Plaintiff was qualified at the time he was terminated from Truland. … Plaintiff presents no facts suggesting that he was in that priority group or that an opportunity was ever available for which Plaintiff was qualified.

United States v. Singh

195 F. Supp. 3d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2016

Firms “must apply and qualify for participation in the 8(a) program through a formal SBA-administered- application process” and “submit annual reviews” to demonstrate continued eligibility. Id. at 2 . … While the defendant here clearly exercised managerial authority in the administration of the companies that fraudulently secured contracts under the 8(a) program, nothing in the record before the Court suggests that he exercised

BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation

44 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 1999

An agency must act consistently with its own pronouncements, procedures and policies only when “the agency intended to establish a ‘substantive’ rule, one which is not merely interpretative but which creates or modifies rights … Because the Coast Guard has not demonstrated any intent to be bound by the Manual and quite clearly is not bound, the Court finds that the Coast guard was not required to subject the Manual to the notice and comment procedures

Menoken v. Lipnic

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2018

Menoken’s Amended Complaint does not clearly specify the four Rehab Act claims described above, the Court will address each. … Menoken was not a “qualified individual.”

Hills v. Mason

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2025

But a plaintiff must nevertheless establish a basis for jurisdiction. Bickford v. United States, 808 F. … Price, 228 F.3d at 421 (affirming district court lacked jurisdiction where underlying appellant’s federal claim was allegation that the VA unjustifiably denied him a veterans’ benefit, even when record did not clearly reflect

CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.

768 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2011

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 . … This question has not been clearly answered by the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court.

AERA ENERGY LLC v. Salazar

691 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2010

Ultimately, the IBLA held that “the record developed during the hearing process clearly supports MMS’s decisions to exclude the leases from their respective units.” Id. … The IBLA also noted that the “technical staff was more qualified than [the Regional Director] by training and relative familiarity with the relevant data to render an opinion on whether the leases should have been removed

English v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2017

Supp. 3d at 227 (questioning whether a document must be submitted as part of a mandatory government report to qualify for the self-evaluative privilege). … Supp. 2d 114, 118 (D.D.C. 2003) (limiting Burkhart’s finding of immunity regarding “decisions concerning hiring, training, and supervising” to tort claims). Ms.

Republic Property Trust v. Republic Properties Corp.

540 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

An inference of scienter qualifies as “strong” if it is “cogent and at least as compelling as any inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Tellabs, 127 S.Ct. at 2505 . … The agreement does not clearly define what would constitute default, but it would not be unreasonable under these circumstances to infer that RPC might be “in default.”

Jones v. Executive Office of the President

167 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2001

By the same rationale, the Court of Appeals noted that an entity within the EOP does not qualify as an “agency” unless it exercises “substantially independent authority.” Id. … The Court of Appeals declined to issue the writ, stating that “District Court decisions do not establish the law of the circuit, nor, indeed, do they even establish ‘the law of the district’ ....

Combs v. Leishman

691 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 1988

Defendant’s letter to plaintiff requesting arbitration of the disputed matters did not qualify as initiation of arbitration so as to meet the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). … Because third party defendant’s liability under that theory was premised upon a finding that this court is clearly precluded from making, defendant’s third party claim on the joint employer theory is dismissed.