Case law

A.S. v. District of Columbia

842 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2012

prevailed on “certain claims,” defendant’s reimbursement of $12,776.85 of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs indicates that defendant does not dispute that plaintiffs were prevailing parties to an extent sufficient to qualify … This was not a “straightforward” due process hearing, but clearly involved complex issues concerning A.S.’s disability and placement.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

429 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2006

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure qualifies as a statute under this exemption because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. Fund for Const. Gov’t v. … “To establish that a document is predecisional, the agency need not point to an agency final decision, but merely establish what deliberative process is involved, and the role that the documents at issue played in that process

Meridian L.P. v. Thompson

305 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2004

Hammonds Lane, Spa Creek and Rose View 9 The plaintiffs argue that the Secretary’s position would immunize Secretary Shala-la’s revisit policy from all review with respect to Hammonds Lane, Spa Creek and Rose View; even had … (“Clearly, there was nothing to prevent Petitioners from filing hearing requests as the 60-day deadline approached in order to preserve their rights to a hearing in the event the state survey agencies did not revisit and

Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

862 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 1994

For the mental distress that she clearly did suffer, Shepherd shall be awarded $75,000. … The parties are clearly not entitled to a jury trial on the damages question.

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

164 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2016

Significantly, in that Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that the corrective statements would qualify as commercial speech and satisfy the First Amendment and would prevent Defendants from misleading consumers through … Moreover, the Consent Order clearly states that the term of the agreement "cannot be modified or amended without written consent by all parties." Order #51-Remand, § VI(IO).

Durant v. District of Columbia Government

932 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2013

And as to the allegation that he was denied preferential placements, he fails to identify any placements that were available or show that he was qualified for them. … A court in this district has noted that “opposition to an unlawful employment practice qualifies as protected activity even if it may have occurred outside of the EEO context.” Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F.

Simon v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2021

Exhaustion would be clearly useless when there would be an undue delay in the administrative proceedings, typically three or more years in this Circuit. See Hall, 689 F. … “Couching a claim in constitutional terms will not immunize it from dismissal pursuant to the exhaustion requirement.” Washington v. Dist. of Columbia, 538 F. Supp. 2d 269, 278 (D.D.C. 2008).

Crooker v. Transp. Sec. Admin.

323 F. Supp. 3d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2018

Government agencies nominate individuals who may qualify for inclusion and submit those nominations to the National Counterterrorism Center. Id. … "[W]here Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs" whether or not it should be required. McCarthy , 503 U.S. at 144 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . This Court will follow Darby v.

National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency

931 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2013

that establish jurisdiction. … This provision’s reference to “the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph” is clearly a reference to the time limits contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A).

South Carolina v. United States

585 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1984

Although it agrees not to conduct its primaries prior to preclearance, however, it clearly believes itself entitled and intends to conduct the antecedent activities necessary to prepare for them prior to pre-clearance, which … both candidates who have already qualified and others who may wish to do so after preclearance stand for election.

Lopez v. District of Columbia

383 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2005

The Supreme Court has held that, in order to qualify as a “prevailing party,” two conditions must be met. First, there must be an “alteration in the legal relationship of the parties.” … This is not a case in which the attorney performed de minimis clerical functions that cannot be separated from clearly billable legal work.

Girdler v. United States

923 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2013

Congress created a limited waiver of sovereign immunity of the United States by enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act and its provisions, therefore, must be strictly construed in favor of the United States. … The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff’s actions “clearly violate an objective reasonableness standard. . . .

Mt. Airy Refining Co. v. Schlesinger

481 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 1979

Plaintiffs have established therefore, success on the merits with respect to this aspect of the May regulations. … On the basis of the present record, DOE’s conclusion is clearly unreasonable as well as arbitrary and capricious.

Heritage Foundation v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2024

Sometimes a requester may qualify for a faster track. … An agency must process a qualifying request “as soon as practica- ble.” § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii).

Gather Workspaces LLC v. Gathering Spot, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2020

To establish personal jurisdiction under D.C. … Cir. 2002). 4 A website’s ability to accept online donations and facilitate the exchange of contact information is not enough to qualify as interactive, see Doe I, 400 F.

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Trade Exchange Network Ltd.

61 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2014

prohibition on transfer] shall not apply ... if ... the transfer is necessary ... for the purpose of or in connection with legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing … Defendants made no effort to qualify Mr. O’Neill as an expert on Irish data protection law. Instead, they simply presented his opinion in the form of a pair of emails he sent to defendants — Mr.

Williamson v. Analytics Consulting LLC.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2024

Four months later and still empty handed, Williamson became aware that others who qualified for an award from the Fund were receiving their payments. Id., ¶ 30. … Analysis As Defendants accurately point out, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not sufficiently establish any federal cause of action.

Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2026

Richardson’s pay being docked, her work schedule being changed amidst injury, or her letters related to tardiness—also do not qualify as adverse employment actions. … Richardson attempts to establish pretext using a single comparator, Sergeant Kevin Dauphin. Opp’n 29–30.

Powell v. American Red Cross

518 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2007

Under that test, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. … Licensed practical nurses and other similar health care employees, however, generally do not qualify as exempt learned professionals because possession of a specialized advanced academic degree is not a standard prerequisite

In Re GeneSys, Inc.

273 B.R. 290 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2001

Burlington Northern, Inc., 781 F.2d 680, 682-83 (9th Cir.1986) (district court has discretion to deny attorney’s fees even when damages caused by contempt are established) (overturning dictum in Yanish, 232 F.2d at 947 ); … The debtor clearly hoped to capitalize on the Air Force’s technical violation of the stay, and sought to use it to coerce a remedy to which the debtor was not entitled.