Case law

Tinsley v. Widener

150 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

The principle of judicial immunity is well-established. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Bradley v. … On the contrary, these rulings clearly qualify as judicial actions that are entitled to absolute immunity. Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to properly plead a clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Nabaya v. Byron

264 F. Supp. 3d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2017

Instead of absolute immunity, however, they assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 13 at 16–18; Dkt. 16 at 2. Nabaya did not respond to either motion despite further warnings from the Court. … Although the complaint does not clearly delineate the basis for Nabaya’s claim, it appears to assert that Simopoulos committed perjury under § 1623 by appearing as counsel in this action without first filing certain documents

Holly Sugar Corp. v. Veneman

355 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 2005

In 1988, the CCC promulgated a regulation that established a uniform policy for assessing interest on such loans. … See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 ("The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for .

Shipp v. Waller

391 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 1975

Plaintiff asserts that Scheuer and Apton stand for the proposition that any privilege in cases such as the present one is at best qualified rather than absolute. The Court disagrees. … Rhodes, supra . . . . 27 The opinion in Apton shows clearly that to find absolute immunity in a case such as was before it would be unwarranted in light of Scheuer.

Matos Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2020

The drafters set out the basic “principle” of immunity in paragraph one — “that no member state may hinder in any way the working of the Organization” — but declined to “establish a list [of immunities] valid for all the … Section 1604 establishes the core immunity rule of the Act, stating that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to

Rivera v. Saris

130 F. Supp. 3d 397 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2015

. § 924(c); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with at least three prior qualifying convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). … But like sovereign immunity, legislative immunity is jurisdictional in nature: This Circuit has held that this type of immunity, arising from the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, art.

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. Shultz

370 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1973

that: the “Federal taxes” exemption to the Declaratory Judgment Act prevents the grant of such relief; the plaintiffs lack standing to sue; the issuance of revenue rulings may not be reviewed; the doctrine of sovereign immunity … The fact that the administration of Revenue Ruling 69-545 will not produce protesting taxpayers eager to challenge its policy and application should not immunize the Ruling from such a testing where, as shown earlier, the

Jerez v. Republic of Cuba

964 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2013

“When a defendant qualifies for sovereign immunity, ‘the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction’ over proceedings against that defendant, and therefore ‘must dismiss the case’ against the immune defendant.” … First, Weininger highlighted that the Florida state courts, in line with the FSIA’s requirement that the claimant establish his claim “‘by evidence satisfactory to the court,’ . . . held hearings, took evidence, satisfied

Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic

249 F. Supp. 3d 186 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2017

The question of Defendants’ immunity is more involved. … “[E]ven if the foreign state does not enter an appearance to assert an immunity defense, a District Court still must determine that immunity is unavailable under the [FSIA].” Verlinden B.V. v. Cent.

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran

563 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2008

There is clearly no such nexus where the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claim occurred more than a decade before JBIC’s creation and have no connection whatsoever to any of the alleged commercial activity. … BOJ represents that it was established in 1882 as Japan’s central bank. (See BOJ’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Quash 1.)

United States v. Fifty-Three Virtual Currency Accounts

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2025

They have not filed a verified claim asserting a specific property interest, nor do they qualify as “owners” under § 983(d)(6). … Greenbaum, 67 F.4th at 430–35 (“TRIA does not, ‘standing alone,’ . . . clearly waive federal sovereign immunity.”). Thus, any counterclaim premised on TRIA is barred by the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission

103 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2015

Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[A] plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 6 12( … Section 702 clearly waives sovereign immunity when a plaintiff alleges wrongful inaction by an agency or its officer in a suit for nonmonetary damages, which is precisely what the Tribe has filed. See Cohen v.

Bozgoz v. Haynes

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2021

For present purposes, however, the Court need not decide whether Haynes and Kahn are entitled to absolute immunity because they are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts alleged in the operative complaint. … Qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability for civil 15 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bradley v. Dewine

55 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2014

They also raised qualified and judicial immunities as affirmative defenses. Because the Court holds that it does not have jurisdiction 1 A pro se pleading “is to be liberally construed.” … Sovereign Immunity Under The Eleventh Amendment DeWine first argues that he is immune from Bradley’s claims for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Smith v. Scalia

44 F. Supp. 3d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2014

Moreover, the law clearly establishes that sovereign immunity bars Smith’s claims for damages against the United States and the individual judges in their official capacity. … The United States clearly falls within the protective reach of sovereign immunity. See Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 212.

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

590 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 1983

Plaintiff argues that notwithstanding the outcome of the officers’ qualified immunity defense the liability of the United States is not coterminous with that of its officers. … As shown supra a showing of good faith and reasonableness establishes both a qualified immunity defense and a direct defense to the intentional torts of false arrest and false imprisonment.

O'Harra v. Littlejohn

69 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1946

The legislative history clearly shows that the definition of such term was left to the disposal agency. … It was found that O’Harra’s enterprise failed to qualify as a “small business”. The evidence amply supports such conclusion.

Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran

211 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2002

of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security *117 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … The Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 106 (D.D.C.2000), Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, "to deter terrorist acts

Noha v. Embassy of the Russian Federation in the USA

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2025

Notably, embassies qualify as a “foreign state” under the FSIA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a); Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the United States, 220 F. Supp. 3d 34, 38-39 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Howe v. … Plaintiff presents boilerplate assertions contending that Defendants are without absolute immunity. See Notice, ECF No. 13.

Relf v. United States

433 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1977

What the plaintiffs have clearly attempted to accomplish in this case is to impose Federal Tort Claims Act liability on the strength of their characterization of Dr. … of a mere qualified privilege.