Case law

Torres v. Agency for International Development

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2025

In such suits, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the United States has clearly waived its sovereign immunity. Coulibaly v. Kerry, 213 F. Supp. 3d 93, 123 (D.D.C. 2016). … ECF No. 19-3 at 3. 6 fails to explain why she would qualify for equitable tolling, even in her response to Administrator Power’s motion.

Thorp v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2018

Even should he succeed, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the … Even assuming arguendo that it was, qualified immunity would apply.

Masek v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

Masek argues that the defendants— including individuals who were never properly served—are not entitled to qualified immunity, Pl.’s Mot. … A majority of his motion addresses issues that did not form the basis of the Court’s ruling, including qualified immunity, discovery, substantive liability, and damages. Rather, the Court concluded that Mr.

Wainwright v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

958 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 1997

, for the reasons clearly laid down in Morris and again addressed in Sanders . … The court questions why, if the "sue and be sued" clause meant that WMATA waives immunity unless it otherwise clearly retains it, Section 80 was written to say that WMATA "shall be liable for its contracts and for its torts

N.Y.C. Apparel F.Z.E. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection Bureau

618 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2009

governing requests for attorney’s fees under the FOIA in effect prior to *77 § 552(a)(4)(E)’s amendment, “the plaintiff must have secured either a judgment on the merits of its claim or a court-ordered consent decree to qualify … ’ amendment must clearly appear.”

Prince v. Rice

453 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2006

It is well-established that, as defendant states, instrumentalities of the federal government are immune from suit unless the federal government has consented to suit (commonly referred to as “waiving sovereign immunity”) … As explained above, defendant is an instrumentality of the federal government and is therefore immune from suit absent an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

584 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2008

They assert that the complaint does not present a basis for municipal liability and that Mayor Fenty, Chief Lanier and the unidentified supervisory officers are shielded by qualified immunity. … In a Section 1983 action, the complaint survives a motion to dismiss if it establishes the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by a person acting under color of state law

S.H. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2017

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would have known … A plaintiff seeking to overcome a claim of qualified immunity bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right that the officers allegedly violated was clearly established at the relevant time. See Dukore v.

Hosey v. Jacobik

966 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 1997

The United States has Sovereign Immunity from Slander Suits The United States generally has sovereign immunity from tort suits. … Pursuant to the FTCA, the United States has waived immunity for certain types of actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).

Wilcox v. United States

509 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 1981

The defendants have available a qualified immunity defense, a privilege based on good faith and reasonableness, which they must prove. Dellums v. Powell, supra, at 175-176. See also, Lucas v. … immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct.

Wiggins v. Equifax Services, Inc.

848 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 1993

This section has been interpreted to provide a qualified immunity for consumer reporting agencies except as to false information furnished with malice or with willful intent to injure. Thornton v. … ESI acknowledges, however, that this is a qualified privilege which, like the immunity conferred by the statute, is defeated by a showing of malice.

Elkins v. District of Columbia

710 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2010

Cherry have never disputed that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure was clearly established and they have never moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … seizure was clearly established).

Yates v. District of Columbia

224 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2002

immunity; and (4) plaintiff cannot establish that an official custom or policy of the District of Columbia caused his injuries. … Only a substantial infringement of state law prompted by personal or group animus, or a deliberate flouting of the law that trammels significant personal or property lights, qualifies for relief under § 1983.

Ali v. D.C. Court Services

538 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2008

On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Evans v. B.F. … As grounds for dismissal, Defendants also assert failure to serve the Individual Defendants, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim for violation of any constitutional right.

Brokenborough v. District of Columbia

236 F. Supp. 3d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2017

Pettiford raises a potential defense to liability by arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects him from being sued in his individual capacity. … To determine whether Pettiford has qualified immunity, the court first decides whether Thomas’s allegations, if true, amount to a violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v.

Brown v. Metro Transit Police Department

87 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2015

Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof … Mem. of P. & A. at 7-8 (WMATA’s immunity); id. at 9-10 (officers’ qualified immunity).

Delta Data Systems Corp. v. Webster

589 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 1984

"Tempest-qualified” denotes a technological development by which computer hardware is internally immunized from external electronic surveillance — e.g., wiretaps or "bugs.” . … As indicated above, only Tempest equipment conforms to the solicitation requirements because only Tempest equipment is immune from penetration by electronic eavesdropping. .

Townsend v. United States

236 F. Supp. 3d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2017

Legal Standard Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected by qualified immunity and cannot be liable for damages unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In considering a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, a court proceeds in two steps.

Youming Jin v. Ministry of State Security

557 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2008

The court determined that the plaintiffs alleged facts that, if established, were sufficient to deprive the defendants of immunity under the commercial activity exception of FSIA. Mem. Op. … The Claim of Contractual Interference Qualifies as Commercial Activity This court initially ruled that the allegations raised in Claim IX, “Malicious Interference with an Existing Contractual Relationship” qualified as commercial

Peterson v. Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

332 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2004

Plaintiff also attempts to establish that GOSI itself is engaged in commercial activity in the United States. … But section 1603(d), Nelson , and Weltover , however, all clearly define commercial activity by its nature rather than its purpose.