Case law

A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc.

70 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2014

ALOF also maintains that Maoz’s alleged underestimates of the initial start-up expenses qualifies as fraud in the inducement under common law. (Id. ¶¶ 39-49.) … Wallis Aff. ¶ 5-9.) 12 Consequently, Maoz clearly in violation of the NYSFA’s disclosure requirement. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 683(8).

Feld v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2016

Cir. 1984) (“The principle that objective manifestation of intent is controlling in contract formation is very well established.”). … Clearly, this is not a record on which the Court can decide the parties’ summary judgment motions as to the $200,000 expenses claim.

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2010

Cir. 1983) (indicating that the agency may establish reasonable cut-off date for its FOIA search). … The threshold issue that must therefore be addressed when Exemption 5 is asserted is whether the records in question qualify as “inter-agency or intra-agency memorand[a].” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.

Mekuria v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

45 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1999

Plaintiffs Fabrizio and Mekuria clearly had, at all times, a reasonable expectation of access to their properties. … Conclusion Plaintiffs have, with one exception, established a taking under the three-prong Penn Central test.

United States v. Holland

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2014

Because the factual proffer does not clearly establish Defendant’s knowledge, the Court finds that Defendant’s prior conviction has little, if any, probative value. … Supp. 2d 23, 33 (D.D.C. 2001) (“Criminal defendants are only entitled to statements of non-testifying witnesses or co-conspirators if those statements qualify as Brady material.”).

Cobell v. Norton

283 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2003

The reasons for this are well-established. … This Court had qualified its conclusions in this regard by noting that this issue had "not been squarely addressed before by any court.” Id. at 28 . Clearly, it has now been addressed and resolved by the D.C.

United States v. Edwards

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

Balarezo’s failure to establish the source of the cocaine references the testimony provided by two of the Government’s witnesses. … Edwards has established that the cumulative impact of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel warrant him relief. Mr.

Cruz v. American Airlines

150 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2001

First, Plaintiffs fail to clearly articulate any mistake on the part of the Count Two Plaintiffs. … If this is, indeed, the applicable injury for which Plaintiffs seek relief, the Court concludes (as it did in 1997) that it is simply too speculative and remote to qualify as an injury-in-fact. See Oct. 24,1997, Mem.

Pintro v. Genachowski

273 F. Supp. 3d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2017

Upon its review of the original 2006 performance review, the plaintiff’s January 23, 2007 e-mail, and the amended 2006 performance review, the Court concludes that, although O’Brien clearly discussed her concerns regarding … for the Acting Deputy Division Chief position were pretextual and infer that the real reason for the 6 The plaintiff also challenges the FCC’s asserted explanation on the grounds that (1) she was substantially more qualified

Sierra v. Mao

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2019

Mockery of one’s accent certainly qualifies. Here, Ms. Sierra describes a single incident during which Ms. … These incidents clearly do.

Rupard v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2023

Rupard’s main retort is that his December 2018 email to Rebekah Salazar, the Director of the CBP’s Privacy and Diversity Office, noted above, also qualifies as an EEO complaint for exhaustion purposes. Not so. … But these clearly inappropriate comments—either standing alone or viewed together with the more ambiguous and innocuous ones—do not, under the circumstances of this case, meet the high bar in this Circuit for establishing

Blackman v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

620 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 1984

The defendant, Hustler Magazine, Inc. has clearly infringed plaintiff’s copyrights in the absence of an unconditional contract and in noticed absence of the agent’s authority to bind Blackman. … Montgomery’s engineering education and his experience as a part-time agent for only one client in show business, could not have qualified him as an expert on the role of agents in the general trade of show business and, in

Watkins Law & Advocacy, Pllc v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2019

The Court established a briefing schedule to allow the FBI to complete its additional search. Min. Order (March 14, 2019). … ATF’s “selection of the facts thought to be relevant clearly involves the formulation or exercise of . . . policy-orientated judgment or the process by which policy is formulated.” Mapother v.

Abdeljabbar v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

74 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2014

[and] the rule clearly applies to memoranda prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation . . . .” (citations omitted)). … Supp. 2d 60, 67-68 (D.D.C. 2006) (“the privacy interests of the individuals whose information was withheld by the FBI clearly outweigh the narrowly construed public interest in disclosure.”).

Shelton v. Maya Angelou Public Charter School

578 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2008

A qualified impartial Hearing Officer conducts the due process hearing in accordance with the Act. Id. § 1415(f)(3). … MAPCS Violated the April 5, 2007 HOD, But Plaintiff Has Not Established That the Violation Constituted a Denial of FADE The Court’s discussion above establishes that — despite Defendant’s suggestion to the contrary — the

Ross v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

267 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2017

Plaintiffs Have Not Established That Lockheed’s Performance Review System Causes Racially Disparate Outcomes In A Manner • That Can Be Established Through Common Proof As explained, the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart sought to litigate … Plaintiffs’ expected class clearly encompasses individuals with widely varying experiences of discrimination.

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

241 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2017

Specifically, plaintiff argues that the “State Department and Obama Administration clearly misled the public about the Benghazi attack,” and that “there is a clear connection between the government misconduct and the records … Some courts in this district have cited In re Sealed Case and discussed the possibility that the exception would apply in FOIA cases where the claimed governmental misconduct is “severe enough to qualify as nefarious or extreme

Marck v. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2018

the redacted information would disclose the private, inner workings of the federal grand jury, 4 “[A]lthough a rule is not generally considered to be a statute, [Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] qualifies … “Unsubstantiated assertions of government wrongdoing . . . do not establish a meaningful evidentiary showing.” Boyd v. Criminal Div. of the Dep’t of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 388 (D.C.

United States v. Simmons

District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2022

The Charter also established the Council of the District of Columbia (“D.C. … As detailed above in Section II.C, “[i]t is established . . . that the U.S.

Ark Initiative v. Tidwell

64 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2014

Cir. 1985) (“The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the Administrative Procedure Act itself . . . suppl[ies] a generic cause of action in favor of persons aggrieved by agency action.”) (emphasis added). … The Ninth Circuit held that the group, “as a litigant earlier in this action,” was “clearly an interested person” entitled to personal notice under § 1501.7. Id. at 595.