Case law

United States v. Shalom

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2022

Cir. 1972), but stop short of expressly answering the key question here of whether a complaint is a qualifying event. … In Doggett, the Supreme Court found that an 8.5-year lag between the defendant’s indictment and arrest clearly sufficed to trigger the speedy trial inquiry. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652.

707 G Street Restaurant LLC v. Jemal's Mickelson, L.L.C.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2023

“No particular form of words is necessary in order to create an express condition; however, words and phrases such as ‘if’ or ‘provided that,’ qualifying a promise, are commonly used to indicate that the duty of the promisor … facie case if the defendant can establish that his conduct was legally justified or privileged.”

Marino v. Department of Justice

993 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2013

Marino’s Sunshine Act claim is facially frivolous, his other causes of action are not so clearly without merit. … Marino has not established his entitlement to a fee waiver. Defendants’ briefing, however, ignores the July 24, 2012 letter Mr.

Clark v. Feder, Semo & Bard, P.C.

808 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2011

The Plan clearly has the authority to pay out Plan benefits. Furthermore, even if a beneficiary’s ultimate recovery is uncertain, the beneficiary may sue a terminated pension plan. See, e.g., Pfahler v. … To the contrary, “26 U.S.C. 401 ‘does not create any substantive rights that an individual can enforce as a participant or beneficiary under a tax qualified plan.’ ” Eaton v. *234 Onan Corp., 117 F.Supp.2d 812, 848 (S.D.Ind

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius

920 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2013

contained in the amended interim final rules, but it also created a temporary enforcement safe harbor for plans sponsored by certain non-profit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage that do not qualify … Circuit reiterated that standing is assessed at the time of filing, and it held that the plaintiffs “clearly had standing when these suits were filed.” Wheaton Order at *1.

Williams v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2010

Council, because such statements do not qualify as protected disclosures under the Act. … Council does not qualify as a protected disclosure under the WPA. 2.

L.C. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2026

Special Rapporteur and because she is subject to institutional immunity, Albanese must obtain explicit permission from the U.N. before bringing lawsuits in her own name. See Reply at 23; U.N. … While the movant for a preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing each element by a "clear showing," Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C.

A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2011

Furthermore, the UFOC indicates that in compiling the estimates, Maoz “relied on our and our shareholders’ 15 years of combined industry experience and experience in establishing and assisting our franchisees in establishing … Moreover, the affidavits of non-service filed by ALOF itself on October 4, 2010 clearly indicate that Individual Defendants are located in Israel. See Doc. Nos. 3, 4.

Employee 1 v. Department of Behavioral Health

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2024

But a sovereign may choose to waive its sovereign immunity subject to notice requirements. See Faison v. District of Columbia, 664 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.D.C. 2009). Relevant here, D.C. … Although it’s possible that is the date he first received notice, Employee 1 does not clearly state as much.

FARM-TO-CONSUMER LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. Vilsack

636 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Zones were established in Michigan by the 2002 MOU based on the risk level for bovine TB. The 2002 MOU “did not establish the use of electronic ear tags as a condition of maintaining zone status.” … While that voluntariness may be influenced by such desires as qualifying for split-state status, that goal does not rob state officials of decision authority.

Ledesma Paredes v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2023

the qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the foreign national (the beneficiary) is provided. … As Defendants state, and the Court agrees, “[t]his unambiguous text clearly controls over Plaintiffs’ sweeping inference from the six words that comprise waiver of inadmissibility based on his criminal history.”

Wigfall v. Office of Compliance

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2018

Thus, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 820 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lujan v. … And Wigfall’s counseling and mediation request documentation clearly shows that she did, in fact, raise her failure-to-accommodate claim both times. See Pl.’s Opp’n Ex.

Kamen v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

505 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2007

manufacturing conferences, was never given back duties he had been assigned prior to taking a medical leave, and was not promoted to a vacant position at IBEW Headquarters in Washington, D.C., even though he was the most qualified … Anderson clearly distinguished Title VII, which does toll the statute of limitations during the administrative process, from the DCHRA: We perceive no such policy [preferring administrative remedies before court suits] in

Cuban v. Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2011

The Court therefore held that the SEC needed to "submit additional evidence that establishes that all of the communications were created with litigation in mind." Id. … "[Congress] provided that only explicit nondisclosure statutes that evidence a congressional determination that certain materials ought to be kept in confidence will be sufficient to qualify under the exemption."

Loan Syndications and Trading Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission

223 F. Supp. 3d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2016

aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are either “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The defendants counter that “[w]ho 23 qualifies as an ‘issuer’ [under the first prong] has no bearing on whether [the open market] CLO manager[s]” at issue qualify as

Johnson v. District of Columbia

190 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2002

The DCPS’s long and unfortunate history of noncompliance with IDEA is well established. See, e.g., Calloway v. … Plaintiffs have submitted only the unsubstantiated assertions of counsel to establish this potential injury.

Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran

762 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2011

its Memorandum Opinion, the Court denied BOC’s motion on all grounds, holding that “plaintiffs have standing, plaintiffs’ claims do not raise nonjusticiable po *22 litical questions, the Bank is not entitled to sovereign immunity … in that case: Why would Congress intentionally craft a two-part section with a superfluous first provision, ostensibly link the two provisions with the “in such a civil action” language, but nonetheless fail to indicate clearly

Fresh Kist Produce, LLC v. Choi Corp., Inc.

362 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2005

The procedure established by Judge Urbina’s order requires (1) a request for reimbursement on a common fund theory that is (2) listed on the PACA Trust Chart so that (3) other “qualified PACA trust claimants” may object with … However, this clearly goes beyond the dictates of Judge Urbina’s memorandum opinion, which specifically states that “JCW must pay interest on all funds received from WWP on or after June 5, 2001” and that “[i]nterest is due

Hamal v. U.S Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2021

The RFE explained the two-part analysis that USCIS uses to determine whether an individual qualifies for the extraordinary ability classification. See A.R. 2078. … There is no indication that the AAO failed to “clearly distinguish[] between national and international acclaim,” as argued by Plaintiff. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2.

Bryan v. Mathews

427 F. Supp. 1263 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 1977

An applicant for retirement benefits may arrange his income for the avowed purpose of qualifying for such benefits. … The plaintiff also contends that the Secretary improperly placed the burden on him to establish that he was not receiving wages in excess of the permissible amount.