Case law

Petit v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2010

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … As an initial matter, the court observes that the 1983 regulatory definition of audiology fails to expound as to what qualifies as “fitting” an appropriate aid. See generally 34 C.F.R. § 300.13(a).

Smith v. Grondolsky

299 F. Supp. 3d 287 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2018

However, this is clearly incorrect. … This was in accordance with the procedure established by the Fourth Circuit in United States v.

Moreno v. United States Department of Agriculture

345 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 1972

OPINION McGOWAN, Circuit Judge: Since the establishment of the food stamp program in 1964, eligibility for participation has been determined on a “household” basis. … In order to qualify as “legitimate” under the equal protection clause, a legislative purpose must arguably be related to the improvement of the general welfare. See Developments in the Law, supra at 1081.

Hunt v. U.S. Marine Corps

935 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 1996

Instead, the agency merely has to establish that the information was part of the deliberative process. See Access Reports v. … The Court also finds that the remaining three documents qualify as “similar files.”. In United States Department of State v.

Anmed Health v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2022

Sole Community Provider Rule Established in 1965, the Medicare program “provides health insurance for the elderly and disabled and reimburses qualifying hospitals for services provided to eligible patients.” … The Secretary did not “establish[] or change[]” a “substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits,” 139 S.

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2020

To qualify for the privilege, the withheld information must be “both pre-decisional and deliberative.” Abtew, 808 F.3d at 898. … ICE arguably could have provided more detail about “the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in” the Draft Handbook’s author and the “chain of command” of the parties to the document, but Pineiro’s declaration clearly

Greenspan v. U.S. Department of Transportation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2025

As such, Greenspan has not met his burden of establishing any prior disclosure of the withheld information. … Ex. 2 at 77–81, 101–07, Dkt. 43-7, they qualify as intra-agency documents. The question before the Court is whether these documents would be subject to a traditional privilege.

Plain v. AT & T, Corp.

424 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2006

Moreover, though the court does not agree with MetLife’s contention that a non-employer is entirely immune from liability under Section 510, 9 in order for a *19 insurer to be liable under Section 510, a plaintiff must demonstrate … Co., 12 F.3d 410, 422 (4th Cir.1993); Blake, 952 F.Supp. at 934-35 , to establish that an insurer interfered with a protected right. The record simply does not support such an inference.

Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

245 F. Supp. 3d 129 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

Cir. 2002) (where sovereign immunity applies, a district court lacks jurisdiction).   3  II. … Plaintiff’s arguments are mystifying because the filing of this lawsuit, in which Plaintiff clearly asserts a “duty of fair representation” claim, establishes that Plaintiff became aware that the Union was not going to

Harrison v. Norton

429 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 2006

Here, the first prong of the res judicata analysis is clearly satisfied. … Aug. 23, 1999), and any and all arguments to justify her position to qualify for a CDIB based upon Cyrus Kingsbury had to be made at that time.

Black v. Guzman

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2023

On October 17, 2019, Gibbs terminated plaintiff’s established teleworking schedule, explaining that he wanted to “put eyes on [plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 22. … Circuit has held that even “disproportionate” “profanity- laden yelling” may constitute the garden variety “sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements [that] do not qualify as adverse actions for purposes of retaliation

Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.

649 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1986

thereof that this infant plaintiff’s birth defects were more likely than not to have been caused by her intrauterine exposure to Bendectin; alternatively, even if such a finding were reasonable, it is *800 nevertheless so clearly … At least equally well-qualified defense experts asserted that a structural chemical resemblance does not import similar chemical activity; that in vitro studies on animal tissues have never been scientifically validated as

Brown v. Trinity Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2023

Trinity does not contest that Brown was a qualified person with a disability. … She argues that this implied contract clearly includes “providing instruction and grading work handed in.” Id. at 27.

Time-Dc, Inc. v. Iam Nat. Pension

597 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 7, 1984

According to TIME's Vice President, a representative of the Machinists indicated that the purpose of this offer was merely to qualify the Western Machinists for unemployment compensation while the Teamsters strike continued … Glover also doubted that the Trustees found February 1983 to be the date TIME incurred this liability, but could not state what date he believed was established.

Hamilton v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2009

See, e.g., he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … In addition, Defendant contends that neither Thompson nor Hersh qualifies as “realistically the alter ego” of Defendant, so that any intentional actions by them cannot be imputed to the company.

Basel Action Network v. Maritime Administration

370 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2005

Plaintiffs’ complaint clearly asserted a violation of TSCA. Compl. ¶ 1 (“This action is brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. … None of these considerations applies to Teesside, U.K., where NEPA clearly does not apply.

Edwards v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

791 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2011

Plaintiffs have not established that clear intent here. … To constitute a property interest for purposes of the Clause, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire ...

O'DONNELL v. Bond

510 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 1981

Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ declarations, count two clearly, precisely, and repeatedly challenges a unique certification: that FAA directive certificating the DC-9-80 in August 1980 after lengthy administrative proceedings … Although the plaintiffs dispute that either the FAA’s certification procedures or the DC-9-80 type certification qualify as “orders” under § 1486(a) because of the alleged inadequacy of the administrative record, Opposition

Kurdyukov v. U.C. Coast Guard

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Rather, “a plaintiff pursuing an action under FOIA must establish that either: (1) the Vaughn index does not establish that the documents were properly withheld; (2) the agency has improperly claimed an exemption as a … Moreover, any personal interest plaintiff may have in the individual’s identity does not qualify as a public interest favoring disclosure. See Oguaju v. United States, 288 F.3d 448, 450 (D.C.

Hammond v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2016

Similarly, the plaintiff contends that “Khanchalern has been repeatedly qualified as a paralegal and should be paid full Laffey matrix rates as a paralegal.” Id. at 8. … Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1399 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that “parking fees . . . are clearly nonrecoverable” under § 1920).