Case law

In Re Max E. Salas

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2022

Lastly, he concluded that the Motion for Reconsideration could not succeed as an independent action under Rule 60(d)(1) 11 because Appellants had a fair opportunity to advance their arguments on appeal and failed to establish … Ill. 2017) (stating that the “universe of cases that will qualify for relief on appeal” from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is “tin[y]”).

United States v. William

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Nor, according to the government, could he qualify for the actual innocence exception to procedural default because the 2 The Court will treat this document as an amendment, not a supplemental pleading. … “Such a showing can be made when precedent clearly demonstrates that courts have come to divergent conclusions based on analogous facts.” United States v. Ayers, 938 F.

Gurrola v. Astrue

706 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2010

In general, an individual qualifies as disabled “only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, … Gurrola’s condition was necessary, and he clearly had no obligation to update the record in the absence of *86 evidence suggesting that the record was incomplete.

Zelaya v. Unicco Service Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2010

This argument is unavailing, however, given that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 explains in great detail the sorts of actions that qualify as ‘unlawful employment practices’ and includes among such practices numerous discrete acts.” … As previously established, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating that 1) she was part of a protected class; 2) suffered a materially adverse action, and; 3) the adverse action is causally

Medica Insurance Company v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

Through this program, the government provides health insurance to individuals who are either at least 65 years old or have a qualifying disability. See id. § 1395c. … The Administrator reversed, holding that “the statute clearly instructs and authorizes only CMS to apply the sequestration reductions as a factor in the Federal Budgetary process, (an act over which the cost plans have

Sun Ship, Inc. v. Woolsey

484 F. Supp. 1348 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 1979

These proposals were to be reviewed pursuant to the procedure established in the Source Selection Plan (“SSP”) adopted by the Navy on November 22, 1978. … That exception provides that no discussions are required where: . it can be clearly demonstrated from the existence of adequate competition or accurate prior cost experience with the product or service that acceptance of

Walker v. Cheney

230 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2002

of the court must establish the requisite standing to sue.”); see also Steel Co. v. … But those provisions do not necessarily pertain to inter-branch disputes and are largely focused on the power to seek immunity orders.

United States of America v. the Project on Government Oversight

839 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2012

A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position. Id. at 252. … Under § 2635.204(d)(1), bona fide public service awards are those that "are part of an established program of recognition . . .

Husain v. Warren

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2021

See, e.g., Dkt. 87-1 at 10 (claiming that “173 pages of email communications by Plaintiff’s [u]nion [r]epresentative . . . explain[] all issues very clearly from the beginning to the end, 2013–2014”); Husain v. … “At this stage, permitting evidence of temporal proximity to rebut the defendant’s showing would be tantamount to ‘grant[ing] employees a period of 33 immunity, during

Select Specialty Hospital - Denver, Inc. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2021

Statutory and Regulatory Background “Medicare is a federally funded program that reimburses healthcare providers for delivering medical care to qualifying elderly and disabled individuals,” whereas “Medicaid is … for claims incurred after their Medicaid enrollment dates and from which point forward should have been the responsibility of their state Medicaid programs, to the extent that the states’ cost-sharing obligation can be clearly

National Security Archive v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

759 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 1991

To properly invoke this exemption, the FBI must show that it has complied with the classification procedures established by the relevant Executive Order and that it has withheld only material properly classified under that … Thus, as a general rule, factual summaries do not qualify as deliberative. See Wolfe v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 768, 774 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc); Paisley v. CIA, 712 F.2d at 699 ; cf.

Qualls v. Rumsfeld

357 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2005

However, status-changing contracts are not immune from court challenge. … First, the court finds the old legislative history cited to be too unclear to establish Congress' intent that the statute apply only to formally declared wars.

Fonds Des Missions v. Unitedhealth Group Incorporated

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2026

“While the irreparable-harm requirement is recited in the past tense, it is clear that future harm may qualify.” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 540 F. Supp. 3d 45, 55 (D.D.C. 2021). … Furthermore, the policy issue raised was clearly “significan[t] in relation to the company.” 5 SEC Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14M § C.2 4 The SEC staff issued the HCA No-Action Letter in March 2025, while

Reed v. Department of the Navy

899 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2012

If plaintiff cannot establish that disclosure was improper, he cannot succeed under the Privacy Act as a matter of law. … The plaintiff must allege “actual damages” connected to the adverse effect to “qualify” under the Act. Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. at 620-27; Mandel v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 244 F.

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

133 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

FOIA requires that federal agencies comply with requests to make their records available to the public, unless such “information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” Id. … Circuit set forth a two-part test for establishing that documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Hartley v. John Dombrowski, M.D., Pc

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).

Richardson v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 2020

This mail qualifies as Election Mail both when it is sent to voters from election officials at the state and local levels and when it is returned by voters to those officials.” … It is also clearly in the public interest to require that USPS implement policies that do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

Peters v. District of Columbia

873 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2012

First, the Court finds that Peters and McCall’s complaints to Supervisor C and D do not clearly constitute protected activity. … While informal complaints to management may constitute protected activity, the plaintiffs must clearly complain about discriminatory treatment.

Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2020

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. … The Court went on to state that “[u]nless ‘the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional,’ such a limitation ‘is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief

Phelps v. Stomber

883 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2012

qualified purchaser,” meaning a QIB with at least $25 million in qualifying investments or an individual with at least $5 million in qualifying investments. … But the theory underlying the fraud claims in particular emerged more clearly at the motions hearing.