Case law

Khath v. Midland Funding, LLC

334 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2018

Midland argues that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Chase Agreement governs the Newton Account. … However, based on a review of the record, the Magistrate Judge's factual finding was not clearly erroneous.

Reed v. Department of the Navy

910 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2012

Thus, Carter’s disclosures were clearly derived from “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act. 4. … If plaintiff cannot establish that disclosure was improper, he cannot, as a matter of law, succeed under the Privacy Act.

Lincoln-Odumu v. Medical Faculty Associates, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2016

While not directly addressing the question presented here, that is whether the Virginia- based plaintiffs properly fell within the scope of the WPCL, the Ventura Court was clearly aware of the narrower protections afforded … Id. at 31 n.10 (noting that only one plaintiff worked predominately in the District and, therefore, qualified for protection under the MWRA).

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe v. Zinke

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2020

The phrase “under federal jurisdiction” in the IRA’s first definition of “Indian” therefore also qualifies the IRA’s second definition of “Indian.” … Secretary rejected the Mashpee BIA school evidence because it was not evidence of federal action towards the Mashpee Tribe itself – just towards a handful of Mashpee students. 2018 ROD at 27, AR at 5114 (“While such evidence clearly

Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-At-Arms

222 F.R.D. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2004

Judge Kennedy, however, did not rule on defendant’s motion for an extension of the previously established deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of motions for summary judgment. … Clearly, these are two distinct demands because knowing that an event occurred is entirely different from learning about the documents that evidence it occurred.

Xereas v. Heiss

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2018

Plaintiff contents that there is no corroborating evidence for these statements, and thus qualifies as a sham affidavit. Id. … While an ambiguity exists attributable to the lack of “receipts, invoices, or other documents,” Defendant Dawson’s declaration does not clearly contradict prior testimony.

Manuel v. Potter

685 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2010

The Court agrees that the three above mentioned actions qualify as adverse under the governing law because given their connection to the plaintiffs wages, each “would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making a charge … Although the plaintiff establishes that he “engaged in statutorily protected activity,” and that “[his] employer took an adverse personnel action” against him, Pardo-Kronemann, 541 F.Supp.2d at 214 , he does not clearly demonstrate

Student Loan Marketing Ass'n v. Riley

112 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2000

It was established by Congress in 1972 as a Government Sponsored Enterprise through the HEA to serve as a national secondary market for student loans. … Scholl College is obliged to sell certain qualified loans to plaintiff at least 120 days before the borrower enters repayment status.

National Association of Manufacturers v. Securities and Exchange Commission

956 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2013

While the SEC did not expressly spell out the steps that must be taken to qualify as “due diligence,” the Final Rule does require an issuer “to use a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework, if … This temporary category should allow issuers time to establish [appropriate] supply chain due diligence mechanisms. 77 Fed. Reg. at 56, 321.

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

348 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 1972

Similarly the District of Columbia’s interest in educating the excluded children clearly must outweigh its interest in preserving its financial resources. … Section 31-103 of the District of Columbia Code clearly places this responsibility upon the Board.

Mills v. Billington

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2024

First, the plaintiffs allege that they applied for positions for which they were qualified but were never selected. … The supplemental responses are included in the record precisely because the defendant found these responses deficient and sanctionable, meaning they are clearly “subject to reasonable dispute[.]” Id.

Douglas-Slade v. Lahood

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2011

“First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination,” Reeves v. … Young) established for her performance, culminating in the Section 508 Program’s failure for Fiscal Year 2006.

Assassination Archives and Research Center, Inc. v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2018

Next, Assassination Archives alleges that the CIA’s no-records letters qualify as “troubling questions as to the conduct of the search.” Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. 19-20. … Inc., 926 F.2d at 1201, and that the CIA has established the adequacy of its search beyond any genuine dispute. B.

Bakaj v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2023

But under the “public- domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v. … The agency bears the burden of establishing that a claimed FOIA exemption applies.

United States v. Liddy

397 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1975

He was even granted immunity from prosecution for the testimony which he was subpoenaed to give. Yet, he refused to cooperate. … Hunt qualifies for probation. Of great significance is the fact that no individual has been injured as a result of the activities charged in this indictment.

Sampedro v. Anyado Group, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2023

DISCUSSION The jurisdictional prerequisites in this case are clearly satisfied. … By obtaining a default judgment, plaintiffs qualify as “the prevailing part[ies]” here. See Serrano v. Chicken-Out, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 179, 194 (D.D.C. 2016).

Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2016

As discussed in section I.B. above, Plaintiffs Alpna, Bravo, and Delta have clearly received final decisions granting their SIV applications. … That decision is clearly unreviewable, however." (emphasis added) ) ; Semiani v. United States, 575 F.3d 715, 715 (D.C.

Stillman v. Department of Defense

209 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2002

Zaid represents a client in civil litigation against the CIA or United States Government does not, by itself, qualify as a need-to-know under Executive Order 12958. Mr. … Bevers, 922 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1990) (“The right to retain and consult an attorney ... implicates not only the Sixth Amendment but also clearly established First Amendment rights of association and free speech.”).

Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2009

, a copy of a postal money order and envelope, and an investigative 6 Section (b)(6) exempts from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … Decl. ¶ 21, records that might easily qualify as ones compiled for law enforcement purposes. In the face of a sworn statement by an agency, which is entitled to a presumption of good faith, SafeCard Servs. v.

Farrell v. Tillerson

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2019

It offers “too thin a reed to support the conclusion that Congress has clearly resolved an issue.” … Have the Defendants Acted Contrary to Constitutional Right, Power, Privilege, or Immunity Under § 706(2)(B) of the APA?