Case law

Davis v. Perdue

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2023

But even assuming it so qualifies, the Department is still entitled to summary judgment. … “The [Federal Tort Claims Act] repre- sents a limited waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity.” Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Breen v. Tucker

821 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2011

Breen for the several vacancies to which he later applied, resulting in him “not [being] selected although imminently qualified.” Id. at 3. Mr. … Breen also clearly states the relief he is seeking: that the Court hold the District in contempt for violating the order to induce the District’s compliance.” Id. The District also argued that Mr.

National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency

960 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2013

Reading the two documents together, the CIA has clearly established that the article titles it withheld under FOIA Exemption 1 plausibly fall within that exemption. 37 37 The plaintiff agreed to limit the scope of … Additionally, the ODNI makes no attempt to argue or establish that e-mail domain information, as distinct from the rest of the information in employees’ e-mail addresses “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion

Lee v. Pierce

698 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 1988

Clearly, HUD cannot base its decisions solely on what will create the most revenue for the government. See United States v. Winthrop Towers, 628 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir.1980); Kent Farm Co. v. … Pierce, 665 F.Supp. 831 (N.D.Cal.1987), the court found that HUD’s decision to sell mortgages qualified as a rule.

United States v. Aguilar-Vargas

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2016

According to defendant’s Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report, D.E. 137, however, defendant qualified for what is informally called “safety valve” provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 Id. at p.13, 20, … The Court established the defendant’s eligibility for application of USSG §5C1.2 (Safety Valve), as well as that the defendant was not a minor participant, 3

Y & N Building Supply US LLC v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2025

These instructions simply reiterate what has already been established by existing statutes or regulations. … Wang qualified as an authorized representative. See BDPCS, Inc. v. F.C.C., 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C.

Kursar v. Transportation Security Administration

581 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2008

Because “jurisdiction must be established before a federal court may proceed to any other question,” Galvan v. Fed. … Further, “the APA excludes from its waiver of sovereign immunity claims for which an adequate remedy is available elsewhere” as well as “claims seeking relief expressly or impliedly forbidden by another statute,” Fornaro

Garcia Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

257 F. Supp. 3d 100 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2017

While an award “should not reimburse the plaintiff for work performed on claims that bore no relation to the grant of relief,” the presence of “unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney's … Circuit has held that IDEA cases do not qualify as “complex federal litigation” and should be billed at a rate lower than the USAO Laffey matrix. See Salazar, 809 F.3d at 64; see also Reed v.

Farrington v. Beers

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2018

The record does not clearly reflect whether, or to what extent, the responsibilities of the Region 6 14 position remained the same after it changed from a DAE to a CORE … But, even if that waiver is unavailable, and even though the APA waiver of sovereign immunity does not “include back pay,” Hubbard v. Adm’r, EPA, 982 F.2d 531, 539 (D.C.

Informed Consent Action Network v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2025

The Supreme Court has set forth “[t]wo requirements . . . , each of which must be satisfied for requested materials to qualify as ‘agency records.’” Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 144. … Fox’s declaration, and it establishes that “Caltech has sole control of the email system at JPL,” ECF No. 10-2, at 4 ¶ 13, and that “there is no indication that the requested records . . . have been integrated into NASA

Holiday Cvs, L.L.C. v. Holder

839 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2012

The plaintiffs do not explain why the APA requires the Administrator to offer any explanation regarding her decision not to exercise this clearly permissive authority. … First, where “monetary loss . . . threatens the very existence of the movant’s business,” it may qualify as irreparable injury. Wisc. Gas, 758 F.2d at 674.

Brown v. District of Columbia

322 F.R.D. 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2017

The undisputed figures regarding the District’s nursing-home occupancy “clearly undercut” its contention that it had any “plan that demonstrates a measurable commitment to deinstitutionalization,” one generally accepted … program can be combined so that a qualified individual receives 24 hours of care, seven days per week.”

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar

813 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2011

narrow reasons may provide a basis” for “depart[ing] from the law[-]of[-]the[-]case and this Court’s mandate,” id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted): “(1) if there is new intervening law; (2) if a prior holding is clearly … See Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554 , 94 S.Ct. 2474 (holding that the Indian Reorganization Act’s employment preference for qualified Indians does not constitute invidious racial discrimination because “[t]he preference, as applied

Lee v. Seed Public Charter School of Washington, Dc

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2019

Under the District of Columbia Code, a public charter school is immune from civil liability unless it commits an action or omission which constitutes gross negligence, an intentional tort, or is criminal in nature. … Again, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether or not Plaintiff will ultimately be able to establish gross negligence.

Apotex Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

414 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2006

Certainly, § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv) does not clearly resolve this question. … Apotex counters that the statute — and FDA’s rules — clearly establish a framework that requires formal, not constructive, notice.

Aref v. Holder

953 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

And in Coates, the court focused on what was actually in the complaint itself, stating clearly that “we will not strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiffs which are not apparent on the face of this civil rights … immunity. 22 V.

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Capitol Sprinkler Inspection Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2009

Without expert testimony “offer[ing] credible evidence sufficient to establish a controlling standard of care,” Briggs, 481 F.3d at 841, Capitol Sprinkler cannot establish that St. … Clearly he believed that the strength of his case depended largely upon the testimony of these witnesses in their particular areas of expertise”).

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2020

For a state to qualify for federal funding, the Secretary must approve the state’s Medicaid plan, which lists covered medical services. See 42 U.S.C. §8§ 1396a, 1396b. … The Secretary first points to provisions in PRM that predate the Bad Debt Moratorium, noting § 310 “requires collection efforts to involve the issuance of a bill” and § 322 clearly imposes the must-bill policy on dual-eligibles

Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership v. Locke

723 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2010

This amendment clarifies and reemphasizes that such agreements and partnerships, and the money spent by those organizations assisting American manufacturers, clearly are to be considered proper cost share as long as the partnering … This scattering of agency commentary does suggest that in 2005 at least some NIST employees were suggesting that an entity could qualify as a subrecipient if it received something other than money or property from a center

Peralta v. United States Attorney's Office

69 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1999

See Peralta, 136 F.3d at 173 (“we have observed previously that FBI is ‘clearly ... covered’ by the FOIA”) (citing McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983)). … Conclusion The Court concludes that FBI has established by detailed affidavits that the redacted information and withheld documents are indeed exempt from disclosure.