Case law

United States v. Shah

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2022

The Court noted that, “[h]e took the test for the person [Candidate 18] and he got the email about the rest, [and] [t]hese are material facts, because these are the way they got candidates who were not qualified to be qualified … Accordingly, even though the Government does not claim prejudice from the withdrawal, Defendant Shah’s motion to withdraw remains insufficient as he has failed to establish that his plea was tainted or that he has a viable

Tushnet v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

246 F. Supp. 3d 422 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Pineiro’s declarations is far from conclusory and, if unrebutted, sufficiently establishes the adequacy of ICE’s search. … qualifies them as “guidelines for law enforcement investigations” under Exemption 7(E) regardless of whether they were created by the agency itself. 5 U.S.C

Gummaraju v. Noem

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2026

“A foreign national who believes that he qualifies for such a national-interest waiver may file the I-140 Petition himself and request the waiver.” … Gummaraju’s claim is more clearly linked to that district than this one. And the resolution of his claim is more likely to impact citizens there than citizens here or in Nebraska. See Wolfram, 490 F.

Tefera v. Onewest Bank, Fsb

19 F. Supp. 3d 215 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2014

C to Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 12-14); a letter dated June 6, 2013, from Tefera to OneWest Bank entitled “Qualified Written Request” (Ex. … Supp. 2d 91, 101 (“[A]n essential element of a wrongful foreclosure claim is establishing that the foreclosure was contrary to law.” (citation omitted)).

Environmental Defense v. Leavitt

329 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2004

The court sees nothing more remarkable in the mention of § 7492(e) than in the mention of § 7491(a)(4), which CEED views as “clearly ... … In response, EPA argues that the court should not allow CEED to intervene because CEED has not established standing, has failed to identify a common claim or defense, and does not qualify for the flexibility applied to cases

Schroer v. Billington

577 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2008

The evidence establishes that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer — until she disclosed her transsexuality. … She asserts, rather, that the Library’s failure to follow its own procedures establishes pretext. 5 . For example, in Oncale v.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. National Archives & Records Administration

583 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2008

The threshold issue that must be addressed when Exemption 5 is asserted is whether the records in question qualify as “inter-agency or intra-agency memo-rand[a].” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. … As with all exemptions under the FOIA, it is the agency’s burden to establish the exemption’s applicability. Petroleum Info., 976 F.2d at 1433 .

Dibacco v. U.S. Department of the Army

234 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2017

Both the National Security Act and the CIA Act qualify as Exemption 3 statutes. See Subh v. C.I.A., 760 F. Supp. 2d 66, 70 (D.D.C. 2011) (collecting cases). Ms. … Finally, as with other miscellaneous issues raised by Plaintiffs, this issue is clearly not within the Court of Appeals’ narrow remand.

Evans v. District of Columbia

754 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2010

Defendant argues that plaintiff has not established an “adverse employment action” because “the undisputed facts clearly establish that the plaintiff was not fired and did not experience a decrease in salary, grade level … Generally, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory or retaliatory non-selection or failure to promote, plaintiff must show that “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for

Ayuda, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

70 F. Supp. 3d 247 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2014

Cir. 1996). 24 clearly is not the type recognized under FOIA Exemption 6. Cf. Lurie v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 970 F. … Cir. 1993). 10 Just as with Exemption 6, the FTC provides no evidence suggesting that the consumer zip codes at issue in Count II qualify for protection under Exemption 7(C).

Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment Against All Assets of Arelma, S.A., Formerly Held at Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, Including, but Not Limited To, Account Number 16

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2019

The Supreme Court ultimately overturned this award because the Republic of the Philippines (“the Republic”) and the Commission— who claimed sovereign immunity and did not participate in the interpleader action—were necessary … Supp. 3d 84, 92 (D.D.C. 2016) (finding standing where proposed intervenor’s “ability to establish its right to [claimed funds] [wa]s clearly impacted by” a foreign judgment the United States sought to enforce under 28 U.S.C

Wilmina Shipping as v. United States Department of Homeland Security

934 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2013

The language of 33 U.S.C. § 1228 neither clearly grants nor clearly withholds authority to issue orders like the one before the Court. … But even after a foreign official certifies that a product qualifies, the USDA still may, at its discretion, terminate a foreign producer’s right to import. Id. at 1159–60.

Harris v. Koenig

602 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2009

establish, under any of the definitions of “actual knowledge,” that Plaintiff did in fact have “actual knowledge” of sufficient facts to establish the existence of a violation of ERISA more than three years before they filed … Based on these allegations, Defendants could prevail “only if the Court could rule as a matter of law that [Old Waste] could never qualify as [a] fiduciary] under ERISA.” Bell, 191 *66 F.Supp.2d at 16.

Dixon v. Barry

967 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 1997

It clearly established the role that the Special Master and the DIMC would play in obtaining these goals. Finally, for the first time a Court order included a specific table of fines in the event of noncompliance. … The Phase II agreement established a series of specific and identifiable objectives, including implementing the recommendations of the management audit, hiring personnel, establishing two new MCOTT teams, development of a

Diggs v. Potter

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2010

There is no requirement that any employee have any medical information on file in order to qualify for or request sick leave.” (Pl. Opp. at 20.) … Plaintiff clearly demonstrates that he repeatedly documented the Postal Service’s decision to send him home, and that the Agency knew it.

Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.

944 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2013

Further, the record clearly and convincingly established that Ms. … However, in order to establish sanctionable conduct under § 1927, FEI must show clearly and convincingly that counsel’s false statements “vexatiously” multiplied .the proceedings.

Vermont National Telephone Company v. Northstar Wireless, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2025

The Government is correct that, in the wake of Polansky, the Court’s Rule 41(a)(2) analysis must clearly shift and take certain contextual factors into account. … Vermont argues it will be clearly prejudiced if this case is dismissed mid-discovery.

In Re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation - Mdl 1993

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2011

- 7 -    To qualify for the narrow “enhancement” exception to the prohibition on taking and importing depleted species, the Service must determine that (1 … The MMPA establishes different regimes for the taking and import of marine mammals depending on the species’ status.

Meijer, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III, Ltd.

246 F.R.D. 293 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2007

1) the named representative must not have antagonistic or competing interests with the unnamed members of the class, and (2) the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified … With respect to the Big Three, Defendants’ assertion is clearly undercut by the declarations of Messrs.

Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2023

The Court now applies that test to the undisputed facts and finds that the record evidence is legally insufficient to establish a clearly expressed intention to deviate from the United States Rule. … The Court agrees with the Third Circuit that a court order can establish a clearly expressed intention to depart from the United States Rule. But see id. at 1027 (Gibbons, J., dissenting).