Case law

Tokar v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2018

Clearly, the Court does not wish to order the expending of additional agency resources in this case if the dispute at hand is solely one over principle, rather than documents. … The Court has already found that the release of these names “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Exemption 6.

Watervale Marine Co., Ltd. v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 2014

statutory authority to do so (id. ¶ 113), in manner that was “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and] otherwise not in accordance with law”; “(B) contrary to [their] constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … claim that is based solely on the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Coast Guard has violated the APA in various respects—including that the agency’s actions were “contrary to [a] constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Castle Hill Healthcare Providers, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2019

To establish subject-matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs invoked the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a). … Koch is qualified as an expert for the purpose of determining economic loss. Dkt. 60 at 19. The Court agrees. Moving to Dr.

United States v. Ring

628 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2009

There is no merit to — nor legal authority for — -Ring’s suggestion that Sun-Diamond requires the Court to construe § 1346 so as to immunize him from criminal prosecution for honest services fraud involving federal officials … the Court’s narrower interpretation was reinforced by the broader backdrop of federal corruption laws and regulations where precisely targeted prohibitions are commonplace, and where more general prohibitions have been qualified

Texas Neighborhood Services v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

172 F. Supp. 3d 236 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2016

There is nothing in the matrix indicating that an employee could not qualify for incentive compensation if a performance warning was received within 90 days of the date the compensation would be paid. … that the Disallowance Letter clearly stated that the challenged incentive compensation awards were unreasonable. 45 C.F.R. § 75.404(e). 12 supported by source documentation

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2015

Second, the Interpretive Rule clearly raises a pure question of statutory interpretation. … The Interpretive Rule very clearly requires pharmaceutical manufacturers and covered entities alike to change their behavior in a not insignificant way.

American Forest Resource Council v. Ashe

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2013

AFRC did not qualify this statement by saying that, of course, FWS could lawfully find that murrelets in the DPS interbreed at low levels. … AFRC sees it differently, arguing that if this case proceeded to the merits, it could establish "a major substantive flaw in the 1996 rule," which could not be cured on remand. AFRC VR Opp'n 15.

Pate v. Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2021

Ultimately, however, the Court need not resolve this issue, because the complaint must be dismissed for a reason that clearly is jurisdictional: Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to maintain this action. … In short, the compassionate-release regulations establish a multilayered process through which BOP officials review and decide upon inmate applications.

Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corporation v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2023

Halleck, in which the Court held that, “to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function … Although that line of argument was not pursued in plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, assuming, arguendo, that FINRA qualifies as a state actor, no unconstitutional public delegation of unfettered policy-making and

Cornish v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 345 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2014

The Mapp Court then explained that in addition to establishing the Superior Court and the D.C. … Strict adherence to the timeliness requirement is demanded because § 12-309 operates as a derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity. See Dist. of Columbia v.

Reed v. Kempthorne

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2010

FWS found that some activities were not initiated in a timely manner and some were not performed by qualified personnel. Id. … The elements of standing are well-established.

Harris v. Koenig

815 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2011

Once again, Larson II, as the controlling law in this Circuit, provides the answer and clearly states that in order to demonstrate fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs must show “that [Defendants engaged in a course of conduct … However, the principle it establishes is applicable to this case.

Blue Goose Alliance v. Salazar

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2010

FWS found that some activities were not initiated in a timely manner and some were not performed by qualified personnel. Id. … The elements of standing are well-established.

Spector v. District of Columbia Department on Disability Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2020

But that argument misapprehends the low bar Burlington Northern established for retaliation. … First, it argues that Spector herself indicated that she was able to perform the functions of her job, so she was clearly not entitled to FMLA leave. Id. at 19.

Adams, Nash & Haskell, Inc. v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2021

In a prior pleading, ANH indicated that the Government has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to the state law claims and that it has withdrawn the claim asserting dilution. See ANH’s Opp’n Gov’t Mot. … Given that the source of the survey is clearly indicated, the Court does not find it plausible that “ordinary prudent consumers are likely to be misled, or simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question.”

In Re: In the Matter of the Extradition of Zhenly Ye Gon

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2011

It is clear that this does not oblige either sovereign to establish that their laws are identical. … Clearly, defendant was not tried and convicted or acquitted “for the offense for which extradition is requested.”

Bootery, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

326 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1971

The plaintiffs clearly meet the criteria applied in those cases. … Clearly distinguishable is Powelton Civic Home Owners’ Ass’n v. H. U.

In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

286 F.R.D. 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2012

Circuit has not yet articulated the standard for evaluating a proposed stay pending decision on a Rule 23(f) petition, Judge Hogan has applied the established four-factor balancing test used for preliminary injunctions … Furthermore, defendants note that the Supreme Court recently granted a petition for a writ of certiorari that implicates this question.1 Defendants, however, do not clearly identify how resolution of this legal question

Louise Trauma Center LLC v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2024

Davy, 550 F.3d at 1160 (reversing district court’s holding that requesting documents to research a book was “clearly commercial”). … It is well-established that a fee applicant may also seek fees for hours expended on preparing and litigating a fee request. See EPIC v. DHS II, 811 F. Supp. 2d at 237.

Waters v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2022

Mary Hosp., 530 F.3d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[Rule 12(c)] [j]udgment will only be granted where the moving party clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a … Karaganis, 811 F.2d 357, 358 (7th Cir. 1987) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he or she is