Case law

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

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).

Doe v. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2025

Doe’s request for relief asks the Court to “[a]ssert jurisdiction over this case”; “[h]old that [the] Defendants are not entitled to absolute, qualified, or judicial immunity”; “[a]llow [certain of the] Plaintiff’s [non-FSIA … And she also asks the Court to “[h]old that [the] Defendants are not entitled to absolute, qualified, or judicial immunity” and to “[r]ecognize [her] right to pursue international personal injury claims under FSIA,” id.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lynn

362 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 1973

The prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are clearly met. 11 There is a commonality of interest in the basic question of law involved, i. e., whether the actions of the Secretary in suspending the subsidy programs were lawful, and … Defendants’ Defenses of Sovereign Immunity, “Political Question” And Lack of Justiciable Controversy Are Without Merit.

Lane v. Pena

867 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1994

The Plaintiff argues that, here, Lane is clearly qualified to continue at the Academy. … The FBI argued that sovereign immunity cloaked them from suit under Section 504.

Inslaw, Inc. v. United States (In Re Inslaw, Inc.)

76 B.R. 224 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1987

Finally, and of prime importance concerning waiver of sovereign immunity, Inslaw’s claims are grounded not only in the waivers of sovereign immunity established by subsections (a) and (b); they are also grounded in subsection … A demonstration of such disparagement would establish a violation of the automatic stay.

In Re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigation

659 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Admittedly, Bettis was decided under the Flatow Amendment, but this Court finds nonetheless that Bettis should still control now that Congress has clearly established a private right of action against a foreign state sponsor … Additionally, counsel for plaintiffs interested in pursuing relief under Rule 60 must also detail how their prior actions under § 1605(a)(7) would have fit within the framework established by § 1083(c) and therefore qualified

Nguedi v. Administrative Office of the United States Court

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2024

But none of this suffices to establish joint employment. … Cir. 1984) (holding that sovereign immunity “bar[s] suits for money damages against officials in their official capacity absent a specific waiver by the government” (emphasis in original)), and clearly bars suits against

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Commission

827 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 1993

Without any doubt, the video pull-tab games clearly are facsimiles of games of chance and therefore are class III gaming. … If the video pull-tab game is not an electronic facsimile, the court cannot imagine what would qualify as one.

Briggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

293 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2003

The police officers in no way established a special relationship between the officer staffing the substation and the decedent. … If the employee followed the specific prescription, then the action is clearly discretionary. Id. In the case at hand, however, there is no allegation or pleading that a specific directive was established.

McCormick v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2012

Qualified Immunity The foregoing analysis also suffices to show why qualified immunity protects Defendants Corrections Director Brown and Internal Affairs Investigator Patten. … Because McCormick has not shown a violation of a constitutional right, Defendants Brown and Patten are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kilburn v. Republic of Iran

277 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2003

Assuming arguendo that the plaintiff must demonstrate “but for” causation to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff has clearly satisfied this additional requirement. … The Flatow Amendment thus clearly establishes a cause of action against an “official, employee, or agent” of a foreign state that commits or causes another to commit a terrorist act.

Witty v. Jones

563 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 1983

I, § 6, cl. 1; official immunity; and sovereign immunity. Because the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under the Fifth Amendment, it grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. … The Court does not reach defendants’ claims to immunity. I. Background The House Beauty Shop was established approximately 50 years ago. It operated as a private concession until 1967.

Louis v. District of Columbia

59 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2014

Officer Riggins claims that his actions are protected by qualified immunity. (Mot. at 5.) … A court has the discretion to determine which prong of the qualified immunity analysis to undertake first. Pearson v.

Reichler, Milton & Medel v. Republic of Liberia

484 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2007

DISCUSSION The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. provides that foreign states “shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” Id. § 1604. … Therefore, Liberia is not immune from civil suit on their contracts for legal services with RM & M and Foley Hoag.

Weaver v. Bratt

421 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 2006

Federal officers not on notice that their conduct is clearly unlawful enjoy the protection of qualified immunity. … Thus, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity with respect to the Fifth Amendment claims set forth in the complaint.

Sisso v. Islamic Republic of Iran

448 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2006

Exception to Sovereign Immunity Because plaintiffs have established proper service of process on the Iran defendants, sovereign immunity is the only remaining jurisdictional obstacle that might prevent the Court from proceeding … Just as clearly, the amended complaint alleges that Iran provided “material support or resources” for acts of extrajudicial killing by supplying “terrorist training ... to [Hamas] through ... the MOIS” as well as “tens of

Stevens v. Stover

702 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1988

The Court of Appeals rejected a “bipartite scheme” that entitled federal officials to qualified immunity for constitutional torts and absolute immunity for common law torts. Id. at 253 . … Instead, the Court of Appeals adopted a “uniform federal qualified immunity standard” for both constitutional and common law torts.

Whelan v. Abell

827 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1993

The immunity provided under Noerr-Pennington is qualified; a so-called “sham exception” exists. … Under the sham exception, otherwise protected activity does not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity “if it is a mere sham to cover an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.”

Ghawanmeh v. Islamic Saudi Academy

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2009

Because defendants, who bear the burden of establishing that none of the FSIA exceptions to sovereign immunity apply, challenge only the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s jurisdictional claims, the Court will take plaintiff … Clearly, there can be no more obvious and implicit waiver of sovereign immunity than the sovereign’s express intent to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court as demonstrated by a choice of law clause within