Case law

Defending Animal Rights Today and Tomorrow v. Washington Sports and Entertainment, Lp

821 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 2011

“A plaintiff’s standing under Article III of the United States Constitution must be determined first in order to establish the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case . . . … Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 180 (1981) (holding that private sidewalk on the outer boundaries of government property was indistinguishable from public sidewalks and therefore qualified as a public forum).

Bega v. Jaddou

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2022

Plaintiffs’ petitions were filed in 2019, before these statutory monetary increases, however, and as such would be assessed based on the then-qualifying investment amounts. … March 14, 2021) (“The agency’s process is clearly governed by a solid rule of reason—the visa availability approach—meeting the first factor.”); Telles v. Mayorkas, No. 21-cv-395 (TJK), 2022 WL 2713349, at *3 (D.D.C.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2025

Cir. 2003) (“[UAW] clearly has standing, and we need not consider whether the other plaintiffs do.”), citing Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996). … On January 23, 2025, Steege met with CFPB employees and the Student Loan Ombudsman, who explained that she qualified for not only loan forgiveness under the program, but also a $15,000 refund of overpayments. Id. ¶ 4.

James v. International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Plan

710 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2010

The language quoted above clearly grants discretionary authority under the teachings of both Firestone and Block . … Put differently, if the plaintiff does not qualify as a “participant” or a “beneficiary,” then the plaintiff lacks the statutory standing to sue for damages.

Furey v. Mnuchin

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2018

framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Plaintiff also points to Susarla’s deposition testimony, in which he clearly could not remember how or why Graham provided any supplemental information to him.

California Department of Health Services v. Babbitt

46 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 1999

If this were the case, then the ROD clearly violated the TRO. … concern, and the Judge agreed, that an important consideration was that if the transfer occurred, plaintiffs would be left with no recourse as they would not be able to sue California due to its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity

Coubaly v. Cargill, Incorporated

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2022

Id. at 2204–05 (explaining the kinds of tangible and intangible harms that qualify as “concrete” in terms of “harms that exist in the real world” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).3 “Article 3 In contrast … Unlike here, the relationship between the defendants and the group that harmed the plaintiffs was clearly defined, and there was no need for the court to speculate about the link between the two.

Grundmann v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2025

But by all indications, none of the FRLA’s powers identified by the Government qualifies as a substantial executive power. … The case before the Court involves legal relations that clearly need to be clarified. Ms.

Kendall v. Murray

340 F. Supp. 3d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2018

He also noted that the mass was "clearly getting smaller" and was 6 cm from the opening of the stoma "while [Plaintiff was] lying flat." Id. Based on his observations, Dr. … He recommended three colorectal surgeons at Beth Israel Deaconess who are *67 qualified to work with K-pouches: Peter Mowschenson, Vitaliy Poylin, and Tom Cataldo. Id. at 120:18-25 . D.

Tillman v. District of Columbia

123 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2015

Establishing a Reasonable Fee Once the prevailing party test has been satisfied, the party seeking attorney’s fees has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fee request. … Clearly not. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Ms.

Gun Owners of America, Inc v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2025

Exemption 6 shields any “personnel and medical files and similar files” where “disclosure . . . would constitute a clearly unwarranted 13 invasion of personal privacy … Circuit has held that Exemption 7(C) “establishes a lower bar for withholding material” than Exemption 6. Am. C.L. Union v. Dep’t of Just., 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

Mwani v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2022

He considered two cases from this Circuit: one, a case of torture and extra-judicial killings brought under the state-sponsor-of-terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) in which the court assessed … Doing so was clearly erroneous and worked a manifest injustice. 18 5.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Shalala

81 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2000

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments, however, clearly intend to reward Geneva for its efforts. … The public interest as defined by Congress in *48 the FDCA does not clearly favor Mylan either.

Gard v. United States Department of Education

789 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2011

Furthermore, as a DOE contractor, he qualifies as an “employee” for the purposes of Section 552a(b)(l). See Mount v. U.S. … That assertion is clearly wrong, as the merits of Mr. Gard's MSPB complaint were never litigated. 3 .

University of Colorado Health at Memorial Hospital v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2020

And the complaints do not clearly articulate a challenge to any 2003 rulemaking procedure. … This does not mean, however, that the cost-to-charge methodologies are immune from scrutiny.

Poole v. United States Government printing/publishing office/agency

258 F. Supp. 3d 193 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

It ultimately concluded that they had not, dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice, and permitted them to file a Second Amended Complaint that more clearly articulated their relevant factual allegations. … “[A]n employee who missteps in the process may avoid dismissal if he qualifies for equitable relief” — e.g., equitable tolling, estoppel, or waiver — “by demonstrating good cause for the procedural failure.”

King v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2009

See Opp’n to EOUSA at 9-10 (stating that “EOUSA gets a little fast and loose with the case law when arguing that King’s pending § 2255 motion qualifies [as a] ‘law enforcement proceeding’ under § 552(b)(7)(A”). … These documents clearly fall within exemption (b)(7)(A), as well as other the exemptions asserted as justification for withholding those two documents.

United States v. Edwards

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2022

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that reduction is warranted. United States v. Long, Crim. A. No. 10-171-1 (JDB), 2021 WL 3792949, at *1 (D.D.C Aug. 26, 2021). … Even if, as Edwards alleges, FCI Beckley staff are not strictly following BOP protocols, that laxity clearly is not leading to an outbreak of cases.

Freeman v. Cavazos

756 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1990

Both parties have provided plausible options, and it cannot be said that one option is clearly superior. There is, however, an additional question, the answer to which is clearer: the question of venue. … That section prohibits discrimination against qualified handicapped individuals "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Id. § 794.

Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency

268 F. Supp. 3d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

Exemption 6 thus has two prongs, and requires an agency to prove both the nature of the files and that the files’ disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Dep'l ofState v. … lnforrnation about federal employees therefore generally does not qualify for protection See Ariejj‘"v. Dep't of the Navy, 712 F.2d 1462, 1467-68 (D.C.