Case law

Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd.

522 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2007

Here, the class action clearly provides the superior method of adjudication, for reasons discussed above. … The Likelihood and Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages Plaintiffs admit that they faced significant risks in establishing both liabili *118 ty and damages at trial in this action, and in particular that Defendants

Thaler v. Perlmutter

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2023

At the founding, both copyright and patent were conceived of as forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the … The use of personal pronouns in the first definition clearly contemplates only human beings as eligible “employees,” while the second necessitates a meeting of the minds and exchange of signatures in a valid contract not

Tesfaye v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2022

Although posts are “encouraged” to accept cases of non-residents “clearly involving hardship,” they are not required to do so. 9 FAM § 504.4-8(D)(1)(b). … Therefore, “[t]o establish likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs must first establish that their claims are justiciable.” Rai v. Biden, No. 21-CV-863-TSC, 2021 WL 4439074, at *4 (D.D.C.

United States v. $100,000 in U.S. Currency

305 F. Supp. 3d 238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

Traveling on a guest/buddy pass does not immunize same day travel from careful analysis regarding its purposes. … Ormond, as the claimant, does not qualify as an innocent owner under 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d).

Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

950 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2013

under a plan to the extent that the benefit does not exceed the limitations in ERISA and in subpart B if -- (1) The benefit is, on the termination date, a nonforfeitable benefit; (2) The benefit qualifies … The PBGC contends that [t]he Administrative Record clearly shows that . . .

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission

243 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2017

Circuit had occasion to note that “[i]t is well established that a rule may be reviewed when it is applied in an adjudication.” … Circuit has explained, “an organizational plaintiff like CREW “ha[s] standing to sue on its own behalf ‘to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association might enjoy.’” Common Cause v.

Savage v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2024

There is clearly no claim- or issue-preclusive effect as to Shane because he was not a party in the New York case, and no recognized basis for nonparty preclusion applies here. … Under our Circuit’s public-domain doctrine, “materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v.

United States v. Young

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2024

Defendant has since learned that juror 0374 is an attorney at a firm that filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae in the criminal case against former President Trump in this district and asserts that fact clearly … First, the amicus brief, itself, says nothing about individuals who participated in the riot at the Capitol on January 6—it is focused on issues of presidential immunity.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Levine

517 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2007

The Commission need establish only “a reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation” to establish the amount of disgorgement that it may claim. … However, he qualified that intention in this hearing. G. Levine Test, at 83:19-84:2.

Delorean 88 LLC v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 2025

The District qualifies as a “state” for purposes of the 2018 Farm Bill but does not have a USDA-approved hemp plan. Id. § 1639o(4)(B); Compl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 1. … DeLorean maintains that its cannabis products qualify as “hemp” under federal law. Compl. ¶ 17. The store is not licensed as a medical cannabis dispensary. Compl. ¶ 17.

Washington v. District of Columbia

538 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2008

Couching the claim in constitutional terms will not immunize it from dismissal pursuant to the exhaustion requirement. The D.C. … Judge Lamberth's opinion clearly indicates that the plaintiff had alleged constitutional due process claims.

Ekwem v. Fenty

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

The overburdening of plaintiff’s caseworkers clearly “interfere[d] with his job responsibilities.” Winder, 566 F.3d at 215 (citing Thompson, 530 F.3d at 917-18). … The facts as pled in plaintiff’s complaint “clearly do not raise an inference that [defendants] were conspiratorially motivated . . . .”

Century International Arms, Ltd. v. Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Corp. 'Rosvoorouzhenie'

172 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2001

In response, defendant argues the letter does not establish an offer by Century. … The Tribunal found that none of these letters — before or after the Second Contract — could be found to “clearly spell[] out the granting of an exclusive right.”

American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service

742 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

Under Exemption 3, “only explicit nondisclosure statutes that evidence a congressional determination that certain materials ought to be kept in confidence will be sufficient to qualify[.]” Irons & Sears v. … withheld the requested documents under Exemption 3, the Court declines to address whether Exemption 6, permitting an agency to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

Kennedy v. Mathews

413 F. Supp. 1240 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1976

Findings of Fact The Nutrition Program for the Elderly, established under Title VII of the Older Americans Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3045 , et seq., makes funds available to the states for the purpose of providing elderly persons … Plaintiffs are elderly persons who qualify for the program, but are unable to participate because of inadequate funding.

Battle Creek Health System v. Mercy Hospital Cadillac

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2023

The administrative action here, Transmittal 1774, clearly instructed MACs in how to calculate DSH payments. … Hosp. makes clear, the key question is whether a publication establishes a change in the tabulation of the particular fraction, not when precisely the publication was issued. 795 F.2d at 148.

Tapp v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2017

Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, . . . fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case … N.C. 1986) (“[O]ral discussion during a visit to the EEOC does not qualify as ‘filing’ a charge.”). The plaintiff nonetheless invokes Federal Exp. Corp. v.

Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2024

“The purpose of the HUBZone program is to provide federal contracting assistance for qualified [businesses] located in historically underutilized business zones in an effort to increase employment opportunities, investment … On October 18, 2017, defense counsel served a letter upon plaintiff’s counsel “demand[ing] that [Relator] dismiss this Complaint immediately” because it was “frivolous, without a good faith basis in law or in fact, and clearly

Coalition on Sensible Transportation Inc. v. Dole

631 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 1986

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing an adequate factual basis for long-arm jurisdiction. Id. at 1052 ; Naartex Consulting Corp. v. … [is] not sufficient to qualify a party as indispensable.” Swomley v. Watt, 526 F. Supp. 1271, 1273 (D.D.C.1981); see also Defenders of Wildlife, 77 F.R.D. at 452.

1301 Connecticut Avenue Associates v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re 1301 Connecticut Avenue Associates)

126 B.R. 823 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1991

See generally, Platt and Darby, A Primer on the Special Rights and Immunities of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 11 Okla. City U.L.Rev. 638 (1986). In Gunter v. … This limitation of Campbell Leasing is consonant with cases in other courts of appeals which even more clearly limit the holder in due course doctrine to purchase and assumption transactions. E.g., FDIC v.