Case law

Price v. Greenspan

374 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2005

Finally, the complaint alleged that as part of that reorganization, the Agency promoted two minority employees to Assistant Director positions over equally or more qualified white male employees, including plaintiff. … Unlike Title VII, which clearly specifies that federal employees must bring suit, if at all, within 90 days of a final administrative decision, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), the ADEA provision protecting federal employees,

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2017

Again in its reply, Defendant established that the SMART system is a Microsoft Outlook-based “system that allows users to send working emails, record emails, and cables.” See Second Stein Decl. ¶ 8. … In contrast, the disclosure of such emails would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” See Gov’t Accountability Project, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 106.

Weng v. Perez

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2020

As part of her replies, Plaintiff 20 claimed that her previously diagnosed stress-related medical conditions qualified her for disability 21 retirement and that she was entitled to submit medical documentation of … That court 21 conducted a standard textual analysis and concluded that the agreement’s “language clearly 22 23 24 5 Plaintiff has made no contention that the Settlement Agreement is either invalid or that

Sciacca v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

23 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2014

Whenever it invokes one of the nine FOIA exemptions, a government agency bears the burden of demonstrating that the records requested do in fact qualify for that exemption. … “Accordingly, the FOIA places the burden on the agency to establish its right to withhold information under one of the enumerated FOIA Exemptions.

In Re Garfinckels, Inc.

203 B.R. 814 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 1996

While Maryland law establishes certain events with respect to the imposition of a tax, Federal law determines whether those events constitute an assessment. … For a property tax to qualify for such priority, it must be “assessed before the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 507 (a)(7)(B).

Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

556 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1983

The application of these principles is qualified where the conduct being attacked involves the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment. … This clearly would have left SPCC worse off today. Mr.

Schultz v. Hungry MacHine, Inc.

298 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2013

Skill and Efficiency of Attorneys Involved The attorneys involved in this matter are clearly experienced class action attorneys. … Several of the attorneys who have billed the most hours in this case have used rates that far exceed the rates established by the updated Laffey Matrix.

Alley Cat Allies Incorporated v. United States National Park Service

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2026

species that are established.” … purpose” qualifies as a cognizable “reliance interest.”

In Re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing

818 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2011

Under the conservation program established by the ESA, a designation of "endangered" triggers a broad range of legal protections. … NEPA's implementing regulations establish guidelines for determining whether and when to prepare an EIS.

Boyd v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys

87 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

In addition, plaintiff contends that EOUSA’s Vaughn Index does not clearly state whether document number 6 was withheld in part or in full under Exemption 5. Id. at 9 n.l. … The Court finds that EOUSA has not adequately established that this record is shielded by either privilege.

Kelso v. Perdue

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2024

“Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge's decision is entitled to great deference” and “is clearly erroneous only if on the entire evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that … The Complaint clearly establishes that not all of Plaintiff’s duties could be done remotely; thus, it was a reasonable conclusion that full-time telework would not be a reasonable accommodation.

Schaefer v. Geren

607 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2009

To prevail, a plaintiff must provide “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” satisfying this standard, Mueller v. … Requests for exception to established discharge or retirement date.

Taylor Energy Company LLC v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2021

Taylor Energy submitted evidence that the waves generated by Hurricane Ivan qualified as an “act of God” and caused the platform’s collapse. See id. ¶¶ 85–87. … A single broad citation to this book, however, does not “clearly” show that the NPFC compilation of the administrative record.

Squires v. Gallaudet University

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2021

It was also clearly frustrating to plaintiff that she was required to attend meetings in her supervisor’s office instead of in the neutral location she requested. Id. ¶ 50. … Cir. 2008) (establishing the lower standard for showing an adverse action in a retaliation claim).

Brooks v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2012

That case, as the R&R noted, lays out three elements that a petitioner must establish through competent evidence. … Although only two witnesses testified at the administrative hearing, it bears noting that one of the witnesses was a special education advocate, called by the plaintiff, who was qualified as “an expert on the development

Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited v. Food and Drug Administration

106 F. Supp. 3d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2015

The FDA acknowledged that it “has not always clearly set out its rationale for its determinations in the past”; that “neither the Agency nor regulated industry has used consistent terminology in this context”; and that … Under the FDA’s approach, a would-be innovator would not know whether its new drug would qualify for market exclusivity until after the drug was fully developed and approved by the FDA.

Sierra Club v. Browner

130 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2001

The statute is silent, however, with respect to what qualifies as a determination. … Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded that nunc pro tunc relief is required simply because EPA missed the deadlines clearly established by the CAA.

Alberts v. Tuft (In Re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp.)

333 B.R. 506 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2005

These are exactly the types of *528 claims that the immunity clause was designed to prevent. See Malpiede v. … But the provisions of the Plan clearly did create such rights for the Trust. (Plan§§ 1.50, 1.53, 6.6(c)). 35 .

In Re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation

335 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2004

As the first filer on the 60 mg generic, Biovail qualified for the 180-day period of exclusivity, which ran until approximately June 4, 2001. SACC ¶ 59. … However, the party seeking the injunction nonetheless has the burden of establishing that such cumulative relief is needed.

Amgen Inc. v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2018

Instead, the “lack of sufficient safety data” on pediatric patients ages 28 days to < 6 years “led to the inability to clearly establish the safety profile of the drug . . . in accordance with [the] objectives of the amended … Often referred to as Chevron “step zero,” this threshold inquiry delimits the types of agency actions that qualify for Chevron deference.