Case law

United States v. H & R Block, Inc.

789 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2011

In this case, none of these factors clearly favor transfer. … The Court also finds that the relative congestion of the transferee and transferor courts does not clearly weigh in favor of transfer.

Laster v. District of Columbia

394 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2005

No. 218, 103 F.3d at 548 ; see also Spilsbury, 307 F.Supp.2d at 26-27 (explaining that “the IDEA clearly intends ‘current educational placement’ to encompass the whole range of services that a child needs” and that the term … It is well established that a “defendant’s voluntary cessation of a *67 challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” Friends of the Earth v.

Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel

663 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 1987

The statute clearly prohibits betting. It is part of the state’s criminal code and provides for criminal penalties. … Congress has never clearly delineated the scope of the Secretary’s trust duties and the level of discretionary administrative oversight.

Lightfoot v. District of Columbia

555 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2008

barred by the statute’s one-year statute of limitations, Id. at 7, (4) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs breach of contract claims, id. at 7-8, and (5) the defendants have absolute governmental immunity … In any *68 event, subsection (b)(1) has no applicability in this situation because the plaintiffs failure to give the medical certificates to his attorney does not qualify as "inadvertence” under Rule 60(b)(1).

Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke

260 F. Supp. 3d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2017

What is more, it is clear to this Court that the agency-review obligation that section 1507.3(a) establishes does not qualify as the type of “discrete” agency action that a federal court can supervise consistent with the … First of all, the duties to “continue to review” agency procedures and to “continue ... to revise them as necessary” are clearly ongoing and have no fixed end point, as explained above. Id.

American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

Under Exemption 3, “only explicit nondisclosure statutes that evidence a congressional determination that certain materials ought to be kept in confidence will be sufficient to qualify[.]” Irons & Sears v. … the requested documents under Exemption 3, the Court declines to address whether Exemption 6, permitting an agency to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

Gray v. United States Army Criminal Investigation Command

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

As is explained below, the Court concludes that although defendants have adequately demonstrated that there is a pending administrative proceeding and that such a proceeding does qualify as a law enforcement proceeding … Accordingly, the Court concludes that defendants have failed to establish that there are no segregable portions of the withheld documents. C.

Hobson Ex Rel. Hobson v. Hansen

269 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 1967

The degree of actual integration which the neighborhood school policy, so qualified, in fact achieved in the years immediately following Bolling the record does not clearly show; all we know is that in 1954-55 27% of all … Two other preconditions qualify freedom to cross-track.

Hall v. Saul

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2022

Statutory and Regulatory Framework To qualify for SSI disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, plaintiff must establish that she is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(1). … did acknowledge many of Grant’s limitations” and “did not overstate her acknowledged ability to perform activities” of daily living, but also observed that her “overall demeanor and ability to answer questions quite clearly

Wiedmaier v. Opentable, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2020

He argues that his “free labor . . .would have ceased but for Defendants’ promises” and “undoubtedly qualified as a detriment.” Id. at 24 (citation omitted). … “[A] complaint seldom will disclose undisputed facts clearly establishing the defense.” Menominee, 614 F.3d at 532 (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.

Texas v. United States

802 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1992

While expressing clearly its preference for its own plan over the plan enacted by the legislature the Terrazas court failed to substantiate, in any way its legal objections to the legislature’s plan, instead relying principally … As a result, tv/o of the districts identified in the Terrazas plan as minority districts and one of the districts identified in SB 1 as a minority district failed to qualify as minority districts under the standards of Mr

Hamilton v. Snow

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), unless the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court possesses jurisdiction, see e.g. Hollingsworth v. Duff, 444 F. … Additionally, Defendant also asked . . . whether Plaintiff believed he qualified for the detail that Burrell got.

Kelley v. Billington

370 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2005

It’s going to be by seniority so that means all the black people have to stay.”) is not clearly racial harassment. … Other courts have deemed circumstances that were much worse than this not to qualify as racial harassment.

Eisenberg v. Social Security Administration

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. … The latter reference to section 2501, however, is clearly in error, as the cited code provision governs the time for filing certain claims before the United States Court of Federal Claims and is inapplicable to the case

In Re Apa Assessment Fee Litigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2015

The administrator also established a website and telephone number that APA members could visit and call for information about the settlement. See id. ¶¶ 11–12. … If plaintiffs convinced the trier of fact that the dues statements and website were materially misleading about the nature of the assessment—a common question clearly susceptible to class-wide proof—they would also effectively

MacOn v. United States Capitol Police Board

258 F. Supp. 3d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2017

This single incident is clearly not comparable to the severity of the sole incident referenced above. Construed in the light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff and making all inferences in his favor, Mr. … “Although it is well established that ‘an employment discrimination plaintiff is not required to plead every fact necessary to establish a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss,’ Rodriguez v.

Archibald v. United States Department of Justice

950 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2013

(noting and finding significant the absence of the adverb “clearly” from, and the addition of the phrase “could reasonably be expected” to, Exemption 7(C)). … While “not every background check automatically qualifies” as having a law enforcement purpose, Doe, 790 F. Supp. at 20, background checks by nature implicate law enforcement interests, see Mittleman v.

Navajo Nation v. Azar II

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2018

Qualified organizations can receive grants for up to 80% of Head Start program costs. 42 U.S.C. § 9835(b). … § 1304.1(b), and HHS has not used less formal measures to establish appeal and hearing procedures for reductions based on chronic under-enrollment.

Kone Inc v. Chenega Worldwide Support, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2021

“If there are no genuine issues of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party ‘fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an apply … This structural separation suggests that the parties did not intend for both clauses to be limited by the same qualifying language. Compare Arnold v.

Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

342 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2004

Although some safety risks clearly warrant nationwide recalls due to the nature of the risk, see United States v. Gen. … The language of the 1998 letter clearly preserves this discretion.