Case law

United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co.

315 F.R.D. 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2016

Waiver Normally, the next questions in the work-product analysis are whether and to what extent the work product at issue is factual or opinion work product and whether Plaintiff has established sufficient need … Here, by contrast, Claimant proffers only the highly qualified protections of section 6110.

Williams v. Walsh

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 2022

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Court’s conclusion that they lacked standing to pursue Counts I–III, insofar as these Counts challenge 20 C.F.R. § 655.10(f)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 655.10(f)(4), was clearly erroneous.2 … appears that, if Plaintiffs were to prevail on the merits, at least some of them6 would have potentially viable claims for backpay: in 6 In explaining their theory of irreparable harm, Plaintiffs do not clearly

Sharp v. Perdue

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2023

Cir. 1999) (“The absence of express statutory authorization for such suits under Title II would seem to bar [the plaintiff’s] FMLA claims because it is axiomatic that suits against the government are barred by sovereign immunity … )(4)(A). 14 proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.”); id. § 12112(a) (“No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability

St. Mary's of Michigan v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2020

Mary’s appealed under the process established by HHS’s regulations rather than the statutory appeals process, it is subject to the constraints those same regulations impose. … Mary’s has identified no authority or principle to support its claim that HHS “clearly had jurisdiction over [St. Mary’s] appeal.” Pl.’s Reply at 5.

Oakes v. Thurgood Marshall Academy

District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2022

Ct. 1493, No. 20-1472, slip op. at 3 (Apr. 21, 2022) (reiterating that “a procedural requirement” is “jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is” (quoting Arbaugh v. … The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

Hall & Associates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2024

Fee Entitlement With H&A’s fee eligibility established, the Court now turns to fee entitlement. … Mar. 21, 2016), and the current record does not convince the Court that H&A’s past disputes over “statutory time requirements” qualify.

United States v. Mosquera-Murillo

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2019

to establish Murillo’s supervisory role. … Recognizing, of course, that a custodial statement that admits guilt and implicates another person may fail to qualify as “against [self] interest,” Gilmore v.

Stallard v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2024

Supp. 2d 308, 313 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[E]ven if a threatened injury is ‘causally related to an antitrust violation,’ it ‘will not qualify as “antitrust injury” unless it is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice … Indeed, “this [Circuit] has clearly held that injury to a single competitor does not suffice to constitute an injury to competition.” Johnson, 869 F.3d at 983; Dial A Car, Inc. v.

Beatty v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2026

Cir. 1997). 32 She must still clearly establish irreparable harm and show that the balance of equites militates in her favor. … Furthermore, to the extent that a ruling as to the validity of one provision of those bylaws could cast other provisions into doubt, that qualifies as an injury to the Board—albeit one that could potentially be overcome

Airaj v. United States Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2016

It appears that no federal court has specifically addressed whether documents related to an applicant’s COM adjudication qualify as records “pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United … As a matter of both Congressional intent and administrative implementation, COM approval is clearly part of the Special Immigrant Visa application process.

Grell v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2018

to: (1) designate Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala during the relevant time periods as “combat zone areas,” “combat zone tax exclusion areas,” “direct support of combat operations areas,” “qualified … Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v.

Mia v. Kimberly Clark Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2025

In RJR Nabisco, the Supreme Court held that RICO § 1962 applies extraterritorially “to the extent that the predicates alleged in a particular case themselves apply extraterritorially,” making it the “rare statute that clearly … Cir. 2022) (gravamen of TVPRA action was domestic for FSIA immunity purposes where defendant was alleged to have committed a financial crime in the United States and thus the “‘financial benefit’ that violate[d] § 1589(

Risenhoover v. United States Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2020

Stein Decl. ¶ 18, which qualify as foreign government information under Section 1.4(b). See id. ¶¶ 15-17. … An adequate search is established by the “appropriateness” of the search methods employed, not the “fruits of the search.”

Montuori v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2018

Here, there is no evidence that DCPS had information establishing that A.M.’s February 2016 IEP would be ineffective at its creation. … The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established that A.M.’s educational placement under the February 2016 IEP was inappropriate.

Perry v. Gotbaum

766 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2011

Therefore, Perry cannot establish a breach of the Settlement Agreement even assuming he could establish that the PBGC tolerated a hostile work environment, which, as shown above, he cannot. … Therefore, Perry's argument is clearly contradicted by the record and his own admission that he could have used the COLA SF-50 for any job applications after January 9, 2006. 7 .

Bradley Memorial Hospital v. Thompson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2009

The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that mandamus jurisdiction was inappropriate because the plaintiffs “clearly ha[d] an adequate remedy” in the statutory provisions providing for administrative review of reimbursement … If Plaintiffs believed between 1994 and 2000 that the GET tax qualified as an allowable cost under the Medicare Act, they could have and should have timely claimed the disputed tax as a reimbursable expense on their cost

United Therapeutics Corporation v. Espinosa

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2021

That is what HRSA would need to show for the record to establish a 340B violation. … The statute clearly prohibits covered entities from receiving duplicate discounts on drugs, and it directs the Secretary to determine an enforcement mechanism. 42 U.S.C. § 256b(a)(5)(A).

Initiative & Referendum Institute v. United States Postal Service

741 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

Kokinda sidewalks is vague in three respects: 1) “it provides no substance to the phrase ‘physically distinguishable,’ leaving it entirely to the discretion of the enforcing official[,]” 2) “it is unclear what sidewalks qualify … “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2021

Such recordkeeping by the Secret Service qualifies as “compil[ing]” information “for law enforcement 6 purposes.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7); see N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. … He further explains: The number of Secret Service special agents and other personnel assigned in support of an agency protectee would clearly reveal the manpower present to conduct direct protection

In Re NETtel Corp., Inc.

289 B.R. 486 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2002

The order of conversion and the clerk’s docket reflecting its entry included no time of entry, and accordingly the landlord cannot establish when on October 23 the conversion occurred. … Similarly, the bankruptcy court had qualified its holding by noting that it might reach a different conclusion if the result would be *495 awarding an entire year's rent for only two days’ occupancy.