Case law

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.

United States v. Drc, Inc.

856 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2012

(“Def.’s Mem.”) at 4-5.)12 DRC maintains this contention despite the fact that the contract clearly provided that “[t]he contractor may not . . . subcontract with third parties without obtaining the advance, written … The government does not dispute the fact of Flores’ representation and does not proffer any evidence tending to qualify or contradict Flores’ remarks.

Doe v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2018

Second, the Court is not persuaded that the Defendants in this case—various Executive Branch departments and officials—are all immune from the doctrine. … The public interest and equities lie with allowing young men and women who are qualified and willing to serve our Nation to do so.

2910 Georgia Avenue LLC v. District of Columbia

234 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2017

Watkins as “questionably qualified”). Plaintiff apparently questioned Ms. … Instead, those emails are clearly about the fact that Ms.

Swanson Group Mfg. LLC v. Salazar

951 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2013

Our Circuit has suggested that, once an agency action qualifies as a "binding" rule requiring notice and comment, it must also necessarily qualify as a "final" agency action. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. … As such, it qualifies as "final" agency action under the Bennett test. 24  C.

American Public Transit Ass'n v. Goldschmidt

485 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 1980

appropriate level of service will be established. … HEW published a proposed rule which clearly framed the question of whether handicapped should be accommodated by access to all facilities or by special services.

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

United States v. Brisbane

729 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2010

jury; (3) the Court abused its discretion in dismissing two trial jurors; and (4) at sentencing, the Court erroneously considered the defendant’s prior conviction for Escape as a crime of violence in concluding that he qualified … At bottom, the defendant faces a heavy burden in his effort to establish that any of his lawyers were ineffective.

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 . . . .”

Matthews v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2019

It is well-established that Rule 6(e) is a qualifying statute for purposes of Exemption 3. See, e.g., Sussman v. U.S. … To do so, it must establish that the information is “of such a nature that its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion.” Judicial Watch, Inc., 282 F.

Greenwald v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2022

“Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge's decision is entitled to great deference” and “is clearly erroneous only if on the 12 entire evidence the court is left with … Greenwald would not qualify for Medicare coverage is pure speculation and irrelevant to this case.” Surreply, ECF No. 48 at 5.

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

Lail v. United States Government

771 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2011

See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States as to claims for damages based on “injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission … As for the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they qualify for such relief.

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.”

United States v. Seefried

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2022

Affirming judicial immunity. … immunity.

Rave Salon Inc v. Gottlieb

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2020

Appointments Clause claims are not immune from forfeiture. See, e.g., Intercollegiate Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 574 F.3d 748, 755–56 (D.C. … The Circuit quite clearly held that placing the burden on manufacturers to substantiate their marketing claims does not violate the First Amendment.

John Doe Corporation v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2025

The petitioner in In re Sealed Case also requested relief for itself, but the court nonetheless rejected pseudonymity because its arguments would clearly apply beyond its case. See 971 F.3d at 329. … PCAOB in favor of interpreting the entire “unless and until” clause as qualified by “in accordance with subsection (c).” Mot. at 13.

United States v. Cooper

91 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 29, 2000

There has been some disagreement among the circuits as to what level of structure or organization must exist before an entity qualifies as a RICO enterprise. … Both cases involved one individual who was clearly in charge.

Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance v. National Credit Union Administration

693 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 1988

The National Credit Union Administration was established by the Congress in 1970 to regulate and insure all federal credit unions and to insure state-chartered credit unions that apply and qualify for participation in the … “As the Supreme Court has instructed us in terms that could scarcely be plainer, when we have before us language crafted by the Article I branch, ‘[ajbsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language

Stewart v. Musk

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2026

Stewart’s claims of a managerial conspiracy to drive him from his job clearly relate to his employment at a federal agency and accordingly fall within the scope of the CSRA. See Elgin v. … Here, the CSRA and Rehabilitation Act qualify as sufficient remedial structures. See e.g., Stewart v. Raimondo, No. 23-civ-1525, 2024 WL 150229, at *5 (E.D. Va.