Case law

Sidak v. U.S. International Trade Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2023

To establish the former, Sidak need only show that his “threatened injury is sufficiently ‘imminent’ to establish standing.” Id. at 1428. He does so easily, and the Commission does not argue otherwise. … It was in that context that the Court observed that the costs and annoyance of litigation do not qualify as irreparable harm. See 449 U.S at 243–45.

Soghoian v. Office of Management and Budget

932 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2013

Protected privileges include those that qualify for the attorney-client 11 privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. … Supp. 2d 21, 30–31 (D.D.C 2003). 17  The type of information contained in the redacted portion of Espinel’s email is clearly described in the Vaughn Index and Espinel

United Farm Workers v. Solis

697 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2010

. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), but must certify that there are insufficient U.S. workers “who are able, willing, and qualified” to perform the work for which the foreign workers are being recruited to perform, id. § 1188(a)(1 … The DOL also established a four-level system for the calculating AEWRs based on the skill level of *7 the particular job. Id. at 77,176-77 .

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

573 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2008

A: No Q: Did you ask him for any information that would allow you to [assess] ... whether he was competent, qualified, trained in order to do this job? A: No. … Parham, has not been offered as an expert witness and has not been qualified to provide opinion testimony. While both he and Mr.

American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service

372 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2005

Consequently, the APWU “is seeking an arbitrator’s decision that certain people it represents must be provided the opportunity to qualify for voluntary early retirement.” Pet’s Mem. at 4. … “Although a contract clearly may be modified, the general rule is that the original contract stays in force, except as modified.” Alaska Am. Lumber Co. v. U.S., 25 Cl.Ct. 518 (1992) (citing Hauben v.

District of Columbia v. Department of Labor

34 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

It is also not clear that any of the CityCenterDC agreements qualifies as a “contract for construction” under the Davis-Bacon Act. 19 The ARB concluded otherwise because some lease agreements have qualified as “contracts … The Court finds that Congress clearly did not intend the DBA to apply to private development like CityCenterDC.

Williams v. United States

932 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 1996

Thus, in order to pursue his medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must work within the confines of the FTCA, because otherwise the United States and its agencies are protected from tort claims by sovereign immunity. … “In order to establish jurisdiction under the [FTCA], a claimant must provide the *362 agency with notice of a claim, not substantiate it to the agency’s satisfaction.” Id. at 917 .

Chennareddy v. Dodaro

698 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2009

Potter, 402 F.Supp.2d 12, 33 (DD.C.2005) (reiterating the well-established proposition that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing under the ADEA). … As a preliminary matter, it is far from, clear that the briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss qualify as material to be stricken from the record under Rule 12. See Modaressi v.

Smith v. Contreras-Sweet

239 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2017

Watkins was clearly instructed by Wyche—a Human Resources specialist in classification—that competition should apply to any potential promotion for Smith. … support establishes only that Jeanne Crepeau, in GCBD, applied for that position.

United States v. Gray-Burriss

251 F. Supp. 3d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2017

These actions clearly bear on Goodman’s trustworthiness; Ms. Shaner may have understandably wanted to deemphasize any association between him, NASPSO, and Gray-Burriss. … If Gray-Burriss was entitled to a higher salary, then some of those payments (roughly $27,000 between 2009 and 2011) would have been authorized and would not qualify as embezzlement.

Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian

692 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

Cafesjian has chosen to pursue this matter in the courts” and concluded by expressing a renewed commitment to establishing the museum. Id. … Defendants also cite the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which is derived from the field of antitrust law and generally immunizes the filing of lawsuits from antitrust liability.

Sloan v. Urban Title Services, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2010

against him, but that she has failed to provide an expert qualified to opine on these issues.11 Duncan’s [224] Reply at 4-8. … Second, the Court declines to consider at this time Duncan’s alternative argument, raised for the first time in reply, that Plaintiff’s claims fail because she cannot proffer qualified expert testimony establishing Duncan

Lucas v. Spellings

408 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2006

“This provision established an objective standard of conduct.” … Berry appear to be qualified.” Plains. Opp. MSJ at 14. Thus, the accusation against Fairley is that he purposefully corrupted the process to aid Berry.

Harrington v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2022

See WP Co., 506 F.Supp.3d at 15 (“An order that is ‘procedural — [e.g.,] conduct a search — as opposed to substantive — [e.g.,] produce documents’— does not qualify.”) (quoting Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162, 165 (D.C. … Second, the scope of Harrington’s request clearly caused a “delay in disclosure.” Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr., 218 F. Supp. 3d at 41 (citation omitted).

Sulemane v. Lew

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

The Court concludes that the information OFAC did in fact provide to Sulemane clearly satisfied this requirement. … But even assuming that he has, he has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus. Sulemane has not shown a “clear and indisputable right to relief,” Am. Hosp.

Graff v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2010

This Court has also repeatedly observed that even if a plaintiff is mentioned in the original request, she would still lack standing if the request was not clearly made “on [her] behalf” or otherwise failed to state her … Sinito also rejected the argument that “anyone [must] be allowed to step into the deceased plaintiff’s shoes,” because “federal courts have institutional interests of their own in regulating the substitution of qualified

In Re: Sam Alberts, Trustee, Dchc Liquidating

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2013

Nowhere in Alberts’ briefs does he clearly concede that certain findings of the bankruptcy court are actually factual, but do not survive review under the clearly erroneous standard. … not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.

Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt

133 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2000

In addition, obtaining federal recognition “mean[s] that the tribe is entitled to the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship … The parties, however, have not proffered a clearly defined preemptory requirement in DOI’s statute, regulations or guidelines that would require DOI to con *39 duct its review of a petition within any predetermined time frame

Capitol Medical Center, LLC v. Amerigroup Maryland, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2010

Cir. 2006) (holding that for purposes of applying the Erie doctrine, D.C. law qualifies as state law (citing Lee v. Flintkote Co., 593 F.2d 3  1. … Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 111 (1968)); see also Provident Tradesmens Bank, 390 U.S. at 111 (noting that “clearly the plaintiff, who [her]self chose both the forum and the parties defendant, will not be heard to complain

Geo-Con, Inc. v. United States

853 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 1994

Ohsiek noted in the pre-award survey memorandum that La-rose’s background was mostly in marketing and did “not really qualify him for much else than administrative management of the company.” Id. ¶ 8 .g. … The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) provide that if the Contracting Officer does not have information before him “clearly indicating that a prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a