Case law

Daniels v. Shulkin

District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2018

WPA claims can be brought to a district court only after the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) find no agency wrongdoing. See Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. … Supp. 3d 126, 133–34 (D.D.C. 2015); see Brown v. Gen. Servs.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Reagan

509 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1981

To put the proposition another way, the Supreme Court has also recognized in Board of Regents v. … This Circuit quoted Board of Regents v. Roth in Colm v. Vance, 567 F.2d 1125, 1128 (D.C.Cir.1977) and said that something more objectifiable than a sanguine expectation is necessary.

Bayside Community Hospital v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Hosp. v. … Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 493 F.3d 207, 223 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000)).

Ruther v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2017

See Hal'nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Desir v. New York

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2022

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678- 79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Watts v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 2, 2017

See Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff demands legal representation and a trial, see Cor`npl. at l, but the underlying basis of her claim(s) is unclear.

Cunningham v. Eeoc

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2024

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (rule 12(b)(6) case); Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (rule 12(b)(1) case). … See id.; 16 F.3d at 1276; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

City of Williams v. Dombeck

203 F.R.D. 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2001

See City of Williams, Arizona v. … See National Treasury Employees Union v. Helfer, 53 F.3d 1289, 1295 (D.C.Cir.1995).

Chaple v. Johnson

453 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2006

Gupta v. E. Tex. State Univ., 654 F.2d 411, 414 (5th Cir. 1981); see Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist. … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999). “[N]ot everything that makes an employee unhappy” is an adverse action under Title VII. Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996); accord Russell v.

Moore v. U.S. Justice Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2017

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Marron

725 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2010

The other cases were originally captioned as Middleton v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-1221), Arthur v. Mudd (Civ. No. 07-2130), and Agnes v. Raines (Civ. No. 08-1093). … LaBranche & Co., Inc. v. LaBranche, 433 F. Supp. 2d 372,380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Daily Income Fund, Inc. v.

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

833 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

Binson Dep. at 31-36; Brown Dep. at 93-94. … at 31-36; Brown Dep. at 93-94.

Miniter v. Sun Myung Moon

736 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2010

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Flowers v. Washington Federal Savings Bank (In Re Flowers)

94 B.R. 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 1988

Co. v. Silverman, 454 F.2d at 913 n. 29; Thompson v. Mazo, 245 A.2d 122 (D.C.1968). … Absent extraordinary circumstances, cause would exist to permit the granting of a deed. 3 In re Brown, 75 B.R. at 1012 ; In re Wallace, 31 B.R. at 65-67 .

Levering v. Bank of Columbia

1 D.C. 207 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1804

said ship and prepare her to receive a cargo as soon as the said owners should be able to procure a freight for her, and that he was thereby to receive for his wages one dollar a day and be found, while he continued on board … See Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheaton, 611 , Judge Johnson’s opinion, and Clinton v. Brig Hannah, Bee, 419 ; Shrewsbury v. Sloop Two Friends, Bee, 435; Bridgman's case, Hobart, 11; Justin v. Ballam, 2 Ld. Raymond, 805.

Shea v. Rice

587 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2008

The State Department failed to act within 90 days, and Shea complained to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. The Foreign Service Grievance Board dismissed his complaint, Def. … Circuit understood and applied it in Shea v. Rice.” Pl. MSJ at 25. The Shea v.

McDonough v. Mabus

907 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2012

Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 176 (quoting Dickson v. Sec’y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). C. Deference Due to Military Corrections Boards In the D.C. … Circuit, review of the actions of military corrections boards is “unusually deferential.” Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C.

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania v. Sebelius

847 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2012

The fiscal intermediary makes a final determination, which is appealable to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("PRRB" or "Board"). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). … See id. at 63-65. 10 Of course, as the Secretary correctly indicates, the Administrator's decision, not the Board's, is the final decision of the agency. See, e.g., Am. Med. Int'l, Inc. v.

Burton v. District of Columbia

277 F.R.D. 224 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

Daskalea v. Wash. Humane Soc., 275 F.R.D. 346, 355 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 525, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). … See Moore v.

Bradley v. Dewine

55 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2014

Brown, the Hon. Judge Kristin G. Farmer, George T. Maier, Timothy A. Swanson, and John D. Ferrero’s Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] (“Defs.’ Mot.”) at 1-2. … See Turker v.