Case law

Brown v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2024

Timeframes, barriers, goals, tasks and plans of care must be clearly documented in the case notes . . . .”). According to Dr. … Grave constitutional concerns are raised when a federal court is given the authority to review the State’s choices in basic matters such as establishing or declining to establish new programs

Son Ly v. Solin, Inc.

910 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2012

As argued in the motion to dismiss of Surachai and Intavong, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) exempted securities fraud from the list of qualifying RICO predicate acts. … Complete diversity between the parties was so clearly lacking that even the most cursory of legal inquiries would have uncovered this error.

Hill v. Geren

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2009

NGB and OCAR will establish procedures for selecting officers for retention after completing 20 years of creditable retirement service when the needs of the Service dictate. … But even if the Court were to consider defendants’ argument, the “regulatory policy” at issue clearly holds out the possibility of receiving “approv[al] for voluntary retention” beyond 20 years of AFS.

United States v. $9,781,900.00 of Funds in the Name of Falcon Strategic Solutions

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2025

To attach the funds, the plaintiffs invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA § 1610(g)”) and § 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1610 note (Satisfaction of … (citation modified), Calidus has failed to allege any qualifying legally cognizable interest in the Funds. The Court thus concludes that Calidus lacks standing to intervene in the instant forfeiture action.

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

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

In Re Fort Totten Metrorail Cases

793 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2011

Because the lawsuits here were filed in 2009, see Compl. ¶ 25, they clearly fall within the intended scope of the amendment. … None of these statements, either individually or collectively, qualify as anything more than a description of the product's condition at the time of delivery.

Head v. the Kane Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2011

Supp. 2d 25, 70 (D.D.C. 2007), Plaintiffs’ allegations qualify as cognizable claims under the FCA, for different reasons, as demonstrated infra. … The plain language of this phrase clearly establishes that Section 3730(h) applies only to the employment context and, therefore, cannot extend to claims for retaliatory action occurring solely after a plaintiff has been

Doe v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2023

Thus, plaintiffs cannot establish that Roosevelt High School’s response was clearly unreasonable. 2. Wilson High School’s response was not clearly unreasonable. … The Court finds this case to be one of them, as the District’s response was not clearly unreasonable to establish liability under Title IX. II. Plaintiffs’ Title IX Retaliation Claim Fails.

Consumer Federation of America v. Department of Health & Human Services

906 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1995

Based on these allegations and declarations, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have clearly established not only a “distinct and palpable injury” to themselves, to their members, to their employees, and to their members … ... ”; (D) “qualify under a proficiency testing program meeting the standards established by the Secretary”; and (E) “meet such other requirements as the Secretary determines necessary to assure consistent performance by

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).

Townsend v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2019

First, the plaintiff had not established a plausible causal relationship between Dr. … Statements merely related to age do not qualify as direct evidence unless they clearly manifest discriminatory intent.

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

653 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

This was quite clearly a serious error and not, as Defense counsel claims, a simple inadvertent mistake resulting from substitution of new counsel. … For example, Defendant Brown argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, that claims against him in his official capacity must be dismissed as redundant, and that Plaintiff cannot show that he proximately caused

Tillman v. Sessions

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 2019

The record clearly does not support a hostile work environment claim, and the court will not permit a patently deficient claim to proceed to trial. … The leave restriction therefore does not qualify as an adverse action. See Douglas-Slade v. LaHood, 793 F.

Kazenercom Too v. Turan Petroleum, Inc.

590 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2008

Rather than clearly tying defendants’ acts to specific violations of the securities laws, plaintiffs merely provide a laundry list of securities statutes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 270.) … Plaintiffs also allude to several other provisions for establishing venue.

Cobb v. Harker

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2023

In 2014, her supervisor did not select her for a position for which “she was certified as qualified,” and in March 2015, she was “abandoned while on TDY in Hawaii.” Id. at 9–10. … It requires federal agencies to comply with requests for records unless such “information is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory [exemptions].” Id.

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2022

[and] [s]uch facts are clearly admissible to show Mr. Hylton-Brown’s motive [to flee the police].” Sutton Crim. … If this issue were before the Court on a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment or as an effort to raise a qualified immunity defense under Section 1983, things would be different.

Garza v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2023

“[T]o establish constructive discharge, the plaintiff must make a further showing beyond that needed to establish a hostile work environment.” Carter v. Nelson, No. 20-5111, 2021 WL 6139250, at *2 (D.C. Cir. … To the extent Plaintiff alternatively asserts that her “constructive curtailment” is a qualifying adverse action, that contention also fails, as discussed below. C.

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

4 F. Supp. 3d 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2014

District of Columbia, 256  - 28 - F.R.D. 267, 271 (D.D.C. 2009) (declining to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because of “the nature of facts alleged” … - 29 - Afghanistan Attorney General’s office, which are not clearly answered by the proffered Afghanistan Attorney General’s opinions. Compare 2d Am.

Agility Public Warehousing Company K.S.C.P. v. U.S. Department of Defense

246 F. Supp. 3d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

In state court, the federal government is protected by sovereign immunity; thus, the state court cannot enforce a subpoena against the agency, and the third party’s only option is to bring a collateral challenge under the … Opp’n at 36; see, e.g., Shelton, 805 F.2d at 1327 (“We do not hold that opposing trial counsel is absolutely immune from being deposed.”) (emphasis added); Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox v.