Case law

Bazarian International Financial Associates, LLC v. Desarrolloa Aerohotelco, C.A.

168 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2016

Supp. 2d 34, 42 (D.D.C. 2003) (stating plaintiff “cannot rely on conclusory allegations” to establish personal jurisdiction). … See Mwani, 417 F.3d at 8 (noting that “service of process does not alone establish personal jurisdiction”).

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

161 F. Supp. 3d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2015

In contrast, Plaintiff has argued quite clearly that the drug-testing program was capable of being more “narrowly tailored.” … While the Court agrees that “difficulty of traversing stairs” almost certainly does not qualify as a disability under the ADA, see Am.

Hartley v. Dombrowski

744 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2010

Specifically, in making arbitration a precondition to filing suit, “[t]he goal ... was to establish a mechanism to screen malpractice claims prior to the filing of suit.... … Moreover, this case is clearly distinguishable from Hitchcock v. United States, 665 F.2d 354, 360 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

567 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 1983

Such an allocation is clearly required by the express terms of the Stipulation of Compromise Settlement. … In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 695 (D.D.C.), aff’d 672 F.2d 897 (D.C.Cir.1981). 37 .

Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia

125 F. Supp. 3d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2015

Yet courts evaluating the timeliness of hostile-work-environment claims must bear in mind that [b]oth incidents barred by the statute of limitations and ones not barred can qualify as “part … It states that “Plaintiff cannot, however, establish the third and fourth elements.” Id. at 29.

N.B. v. District of Columbia

244 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2017

Medicaid program, Which provides, inter alia, certain prescription drug benefits to 2 qualified beneficiaries D.C. … (holding that plaintiffs had established likelihood of success on due process claim where FEMA’s notice of denying housing benefits failed to clearly specify reasons for denial).

Wright v. Sessions

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2022

“Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge’s decision is entitled to great deference” and “is clearly erroneous only if on the entire evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that … Feb. 23, 2007) (“[R]eferral to the Employee Assistance Program with the mandatory leave of absence may qualify as an adverse employment action.”).

McCallum v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2023

Plaintiff alleges that Gonzalez and Rocha, both of whom are Hispanic, were “clearly close friends” and had developed a close relationship while working together at the Office of Public Affairs since January 2009. … To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory non-promotion, plaintiff must show that “(1) [she] is a member of a protected class; (2) [she] applied for and was qualified for an available position; (3) despite [her]

Billington v. Department of Justice

11 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 1998

Given the customary trust established for relaying information between state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies and the FBI, the court concludes that an implied confidential relationship was established.”). … Richard Yepez, according to Billington, provided information to the Government under a written promise of immunity. (Plaintiff's Memorandum, 19-20) 7 .

Dl v. District of Columbia

302 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2013

In exchange for federal funding, the IDEA requires that states and the District of Columbia “establish policies and procedures to ensure . . . … Definiteness is not mandated by Rule 23 but is a judicial creation requiring that the class be (1) “adequately defined;” and (2) “clearly ascertainable.” 1 William B.

Hall & Associates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2018

Circuit have together established that Exemption 5’s protection from disclosure does not apply in certain circumstances. … This language clearly indicated that the EPA was not committing to applying the Eighth Circuit’s holding nationwide.

Baird v. Snowbarger

744 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

It is also worth noting that each underlying event plaintiff complained of was a minor, trivial annoyance, and such “sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements do not [themselves] qualify as ad *293 verse actions for purposes … “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”

Dib v. Shea

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2026

Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 702 (2018) (“[T]he admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’”) … Even when a plaintiff checks off all three prerequisites, conversely, that establishes only that the court may hear his suit.

Adams v. Department of Mental Health of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2010

Id. at 12 (noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … Absent “extraordinary circumstances,” the District of Columbia is immune to punitive damages claims. Hunter v. Dist. of Columbia, 384 F. Supp. 2d 257, 262 n.4 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Smith v.

MacOmb Foot, Ankle & Wound Care v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Macomb then requested reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (“QIC”), who also affirmed the denials for services rendered in October and November 2021 but dismissed the request as to date of service December … Plaintiffs here, as in Greiner, fail to establish standing as to this claim. See id.

Thompson v. Dc Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2018

of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ofthe United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … District of Columbia had a policy or practice of retaliating against employees for exercising the right to free speech under the First Amendinent” because an isolated “incident of alleged retaliation against plaintiff does not qualify

Jenkins v. Sanford Capital, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2020

She has qualified for Section 8 assistance payments based on her annual income, and the federal government has covered “up to 100%” of her monthly rent by paying Defendants “in excess of $950.00 per month.” Id. ¶ 14. … See Piercing the Corporate Veil, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The judicial act of imposing personal liability on otherwise immune corporate officers, directors, or shareholders for the corporation's wrongful

La Botz v. Federal Election Commission of Washington, D.C.

61 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2014

FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732‒33 (2008) (“To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”) … Thus, La Botz’s challenge is clearly one that evades review under the first prong of the analysis.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2021

Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (“FOIA litigation is not immune from our open, adversary process . . . . … The defendant has not met its burden to establish the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.

NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

846 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1994

Finding that the clearance order clearly established an 8 ton/day minimum productivity standard, the Bygrave Court (Judge Lucy Brown) held that the task rate could not be less than the AEWR per ton. … Defendants’ claim that there is no longer any case or controversy thus clearly overstates the point.