Case law

Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc.

246 F.R.D. 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2007

Finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing a privilege with respect to the answers to Interrogatories ## 1, 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15. (Id.) 1. … On the other hand, information about ERC’s investigation of Post is clearly relevant to the allegations contained in the Complaint.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2018

assumption that it did not contain a previously approved active moiety,” because, using the agency’s interpretation of the NCE exclusivity regulations in place at the time, it had already determined that Prepopik did not qualify … “‘Law-of-the-case doctrine’ refers to a family of rules embodying the general concept that a court involved in later phases of a lawsuit should not re-open questions decided (i.e., established as the law of the case) by

Geo Specialty Chemicals, Incorporated v. Husisian

951 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2013

When a lawyer has been directly involved in a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially adverse interests clearly is prohibited. … claim, [or] investigation" and therefore qualifies as its own "matter." Rule l.O(h).

A.T. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2021

See HOD 1, ECF No. 14-1, at 16 (noting that “there is nothing in the record to establish that the Student has severe issues with peers [and] [t]here is nothing to establish that she has gotten into physical altercations with … Because Plaintiffs have not been able to establish a denial of FAPE, which is the first of three prongs to qualify for tuition reimbursement, see Forest Grove Sch.

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

Schmidt v. Solis

891 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2012

On January 12, 2005, Raps sent Schmidt a letter in which he established a new accommodation for her. JEX 16 at 1. … an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C § 12112(b)(5)(A).

Nicopure Labs, LLC v. Food and Drug Administration

266 F. Supp. 3d 360 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2017

the message will be clearly understood by others. … So this factor has been established. 3.

Toxco Inc. v. Chu

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2010

The plaintiff submitted a proposal in June 2009, and ARC determined that the plaintiff was the lowest-cost, qualifying bidder. Id. … “[T]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Akinseye v. District of Columbia

193 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2002

Buckhannon merely established a benchmark for when a party can be classified as a prevailing party after a court action *139 has been initiated. … In reaching its conclusion in Spiegler , the Court also noted that it was unable to find a federal statute of limitations that “ ‘clearly provide[d] a closer analogy than available state statutes,’ ” Spiegler, 866 F.2d at

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

Sea Watch International v. Mosbacher

762 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 1991

This fishery was further divided into two sub-areas, and separate quotas and quarterly sub-quotas were established for each. … Both regulators and fishermen have an interest in having ground rules established before any problem matures.

American Great Lakes Ports Association v. United States Coast Guard

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2020

In order to qualify for such a loan, an association would have to “demonstrate credit worthiness.” Id. … Rather, it merely established that the parties “intend[ed] to arrange for the establishment of regulations imposing comparable rates and charges.”

Rumber v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2009

Mot. to Enforce, Ex. 2 (“Risher e-mail”), is a “memorandum or note” sufficient to qualify as a writing to satisfy the statute of frauds, see D.C. … The burden of establishing mootness rests on the party raising the issue, and it is a heavy burden.

Rochon v. Lynch

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2015

Here, as explained below, this Court has assumed (without deciding) that Rochon engaged in protected activity and that the FBI’s temporary denial of an ID card qualifies as an adverse action under Title VII, and thus, that … so that they would not surface again in any subsequent name check (see Ex. 12 to Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 21-1, 19 40–48, at 41–46), and this action on his part demonstrates 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.

United States v. Matthews

58 F. Supp. 3d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2014

Having done so, however, I find that these sources clearly indicate that Congress in fact intended § 924(c)’s scope to reach only federal, U.S.Code predicates, not state felonies. … Congress later amended the definition and expressly delineated which U.S.Code provisions must be violated to qualify as a "drug trafficking crime.”

Cavalier v. Catholic University of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2018

It is required, however, to respond to any such known acts of harassment in a manner that is not “clearly unreasonable.” Id. … Court of Appeals listed a series of relationships that might qualify—“psychiatrist/therapist and patient,” “doctor-patient,” “funeral home or hospital” and the family of a decedent, and “persons who are appointed to act

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.

Cameron v. Riggs Nat. Bank

53 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1943

of Columbia, as local creditors in substantially, if not all, other jurisdictions in the United States, are to be given an opportunity to assert their claims against local assets of a decedent domiciled elsewhere seems clearly … If the right to sue is qualified by a provision that gives to an interested party the right to require a bond for the protection of local creditors, it is difficult to see how there can be a right to demand such payment,

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2022

And, because probable case was established, Montgomery was not held on a Gerstein perfection hold because a Gerstein perfection hold only occurs when “the Gerstein [affidavit] does not establish probable cause.” … J (Dec. 18, 2012 Tr.) 16 at 1:8–1:10. 10 Thus, he does not qualify as an illegal Gerstein hold detainee as alleged by the plaintiffs.