Case law

Morris v. Runyon

870 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 1994

In short, the case law clearly establishes that because the regulations at issue contain no standards by which to judge the Postal Service’s exercise of discretion, such discretion, as exercised in this case, cannot be reviewed … It is not even clear that the federal government has waived sovereign immunity with respect to claims asserting promissory estoppel. See Robbins v.

Eisenberg v. Social Security Administration

703 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2010

Plaintiff urges that this claim is not moot or alternatively, if the Court finds the issue is moot, that it qualifies under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. Id. at 3-4 . … LEGAL STANDARD Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Georgiades v.

Bryant v. Secretary of the Army

862 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 1994

The Court is of the opinion that the inclusion of a “letters to the editor” section — a feature that clearly does not reflect government speech in any ordinary sense of the term — removes any doubt that the CENs are not to … Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the argument that the regulation in question is immune from the Plaintiffs First Amendment challenges, because the “letters to the editor” section of the newspaper cannot properly be classified

Bangoura v. Jackman

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2009

Plaintiff, in his reply, asserted that he was entitled to declaratory relief based on Defendant’s “well-established pattern of delayed and ineffectual responses to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.” … Plaintiff did not dispute Defendant’s showing that the redacted information qualifies as a “personnel, medical or similar file” as contemplated by Exemption 6.

Thomas v. Pompeo

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2020

deny their visa application, “but rather the failure of Defendants to, properly and within a reasonable time, perform their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate [plaintiff’s] visa application and waiver, which clearly … HUVELLE United States District Judge Date: February 7, 2020 6 Judge Cooper applied the TRAC factors and concluded that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish that

North v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(6). … Rule 6(e) qualifies as a statute for purposes of FOIA Exemption 3 because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. Nat’l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 867-68 (D.C.

Autor v. Blank

892 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2012

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. … [T]he very fact that they are arguable is sufficient, on rational basis review, to immunize the . . . choice from constitutional challenge.”

Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund v. Schafer

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Zones were established in Michigan by the 2002 MOU based on the risk level for bovine TB. The 2002 MOU “did not establish the use of electronic ear tags as a condition of maintaining zone status.” … -14- may be influenced by such desires as qualifying for split-state status, that goal does not rob state officials of decision authority.

Cleveland v. United States Department of State

128 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2015

“To qualify [for non-disclosure under Exemption 5], a document must thus satisfy two conditions: its source must be a Government agency, and it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial … The threshold issue that must be addressed when Exemption 5 is asserted is whether the records in question qualify as “inter-agency or intra-agency memorand[a].”

Campbell v. Natl Railroad Pass

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2018

Roth is certainly qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Indeed, as Mr. … Feb. 14, 1997) (class not clearly defined because, to ascertain class membership, the court would be required to “answer several fact-intensive questions”).

United States v. Raymond

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2023

Background Specific to Pending Motion The Government's prudential review uncovered a number of classified records that may qualify as Brady, Gigtio, or Jencks material. … DISCUSSION The Court need not devote substantial time to much of the Government's redactions, because the vast majority of them are clearly appropriate.

Harris v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 1990

The Secretary’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 establish a long and a short test of *260 whether a worker fits the executive exemption. … Because this is how plaintiffs spend the bulk of their time, they clearly cannot be employed in a bona fide executive capacity.

Muse v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2024

But the parties disagree on whether other allegations qualify. WMATA insists that certain contentions are “outside the scope” of Muse’s Title VII suit because she failed to raise them before the EEOC. Def.’s Mot. … “If temporal proximity sufficed to rebut a legitimate proffer [of non-retaliatory justifications], then protected activities would effectively grant employees a period of immunity, during which no act, however egregious

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan

79 F. Supp. 3d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2015

compliance based on how close Defendants have come to paying out $75.8 or $87 million or any 10 other estimated amount in judgment liabilities because these amounts were clearly … Changing the letter does not change the outcome that a class member did not qualify for benefits, but it does provide the class member notice of how to challenge the outcome.

Sierra Club v. Mainella

459 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2012

Public Citizen involved circumstances where the agency clearly had “no ability” to take actions that could lessen the environmental impacts of concern to the plaintiffs. 541 U.S. at 766 , 124 S.Ct. 2204 . … But commenters stated they hiked in those areas (AR-C 0225), and NPS’s explanation clearly did not account for hikers.

St. Michael's Medical Center v. Sebelius

648 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2009

Indeed, the Supreme Court in Chevron made this point particularly clearly: An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. … When the agency reevaluated this interpretation in 2001, its rationale for doing so was clearly explained.

Apton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

233 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2017

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 (establishing procedures for removal), 1447 (establishing procedures for remand after removal). … (See Pl.’s Remand Mot. at 9 (explaining that the $100,000 figure listed on the civil cover sheet was “clearly an oversight”).)

Ateba v. Jean-Pierre

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2023

On August 1, 2023, the White House directed the Secret Service to deactivate hard passes for approximately 500 journalists who did not qualify under the new Hard Pass Policy. Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ … Ateba does not challenge the immunity of the White House Press Office from APA review. See Pl.’s Reply at 11.

Feinman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

680 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2010

This Court has also repeatedly observed that even if a plaintiff is mentioned in the original request, she would still lack standing if the request was not clearly made “on [her] behalf’ or otherwise failed to state her interest … Sinito also rejected the argument that “anyone [must] be allowed to step into the deceased plaintiffs shoes,” because “federal courts have institutional interests of their own in regulating the substitution of qualified parties

Said Kuman v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2010

More fundamentally, though, counsel have not established the requirements to obtain next friend standing. … But Kuman appears competent, and has been offered access to translators and well-qualified counsel.