Case law

Floyd v. Office of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

968 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2013

Immunity Ms. Floyd’s claims are predicated on Rep. … An employee need not prove discriminatory intent to establish a failure-to-accommodate claim, see, e.g., Etheridge, 789 F.

Recycling Solutions, Inc. v. District of Columbia

175 F.R.D. 407 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1997

Their Fourteenth Affirmative Defense is one of “absolute and/or qualified immunity.” … Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581-82 (E.D.Wash. 1975) (defense of qualified immunity in section 1983 case waives privilege for information “germane” to defense); see also Glenmede Trust Co. v.

Reed v. District of Columbia

474 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Officer Fitch is not liable under section 1983 based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under section 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Lakestani v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2025

Setting aside the question of Iran’s immunity, Mr. Lakestani has satisfied the other factors necessary to establish this Court’s original jurisdiction under § 1330(a). … Lakestani qualifies for the terrorism exception’s private right of action because he is a U.S. national and, “given the overlap between the elements of this cause of action and the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

257 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2003

” for purposes of defeating defendants’ qualified immunity. … Moritsugu, 163 F.3d *81 610 (1998) (reversing the District Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and holding that plaintiff’s complaints implied an obligation falling far

Lewis v. Mutond

258 F. Supp. 3d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2017

Circuit held that the General qualified for immunity under the FSIA given that “his actions were within the authority given to him by the State of Israel.” Id. … Ratification of an official’s actions can be sufficient to establish immunity under the common law foreign official immunity doctrine. See id. Here, the DRC’s Ambassador to the United States sent the U.S.

Wittkowski v. Levine

382 F. Supp. 3d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2019

immunity on the damages claims and 5) plaintiff has proffered no medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care and thus cannot prevail on her medical malpractice claims. … While the Court agrees that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to defendants, see Husband v. Fair , Civ. A. No. 86-2865-Z, 1993 WL 343669 , at *6 (D. Mass.

Keller v. Transportes Aereos Militares Ecuadorianos

601 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 1985

TAME HAS NOT WAIVED ITS IMMUNITY, AND MUST BE DISMISSED Plaintiff asserts that TAME has waived its sovereign immunity, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(1) establishes subject matter jurisdiction. … The FSIA, in § 1330, also establishes jurisdiction if any "applicable international agreements” creates an exception to immunity. There is no claim of any such agreement in this case. 2 .

Tillmon v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2025

At the same time, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, see Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. … . § 825.115(a)(2)–(3), serious car accident injuries can qualify as severe health conditions, see Cobbs, 746 F. Supp. 2d at 144.

Lanier v. Smedberg

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2025

Pro se litigants must still establish subject matter jurisdiction and state a claim to survive dismissal. Id. A. … nor to show that he was more qualified than those selected” (citation omitted)); Webster v.

United States v. Navarro

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2023

That is because there is none. 1 Defendant therefore has failed to establish that he was “actively mislead” by any OLC opinion. Reasonable Reliance. … A modicum of research would have revealed that the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege is qualified, not “absolute.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706–07 (1974).

Olaniyi v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2011

Unlike the Rule 56(f) motion directed at the District of Columbia, in the qualified immunity context the Court “must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the substance of the qualified immunity defense. … Even if the impoundment was unlawful because it was not made pursuant to standard police procedure, that requirement was not clearly established in this jurisdiction in March of 2003 and thus it would not have been clear

Globe, Inc. v. United States

553 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1982

Subsection (b) waives sovereign immunity so that the United States becomes liable for attorney fees in civil litigation to the same extent that a private party would be. See H.R.Rep. … The Court will not award fees for claims that were clearly meritless.

Ham v. Ayers

229 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2017

Supp. 2d 175, 177-79 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Because the language of the CAA provision at issue in this case clearly confers jurisdiction to this Court only if plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites to filing … of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (noting that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary

Mowatt v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

The Court disagrees with the Defendants and agrees with the Plaintiff that “[t]his is clearly not a Habeas Action and should not be construed as such.” Pl.’s Reply to Defs. … Moore is also entitled to qualified immunity or has not been sufficiently served with process. 9 However, Plaintiff makes no allegation that Warden Grayer had anything

Mason v. Claytor

459 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 1978

Economou, the Supreme Court held that “in a suit for damages arising from unconstitutional action, federal executive officials exercising discretion are entitled only to the qualified immunity specified in Scheuer [v. … , see id. at -......., 98 S.Ct. 2894 , the Court need not address that question because it is quite clear that plaintiff’s damage claim is barred by Broderick’s qualified immunity.

Darui v. United States Department of State

798 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

Thus, Grafeld’s declaration is sufficient to establish the “logical” or “plausible” conclusion, see Wolf, 473 F.3d at 375 , that emails between attorneys at DOJ and State discussing plaintiffs hearing on sovereign immunity … However, plaintiff cannot establish the third element.

Tillmon v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2025

At the same time, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, see Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. … . § 825.115(a)(2)–(3), serious car accident injuries can qualify as severe health conditions, see Cobbs, 746 F. Supp. 2d at 144.

Eisenbeiser v. Chertoff

448 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2006

The APA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in qualifying suits. Id. § 702. … While the Circuit found that the district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims under a federal law, the plaintiffs could not rely upon the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity because there was no record

Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan

172 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2016

Commenced in December 2014, they clearly do not satisfy the first option. What about the second? … Thus, they say, the Aliganga plaintiffs were full members of the Owens case, which qualifies as a related original action under § 1083(c)(3).