Case law

In Re Capitol Hill Group

320 B.R. 460 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2005

Although Newmark may have performed or intended to perform some services for the debtor that do not qualify as traditional real estate brokerage services governed by D.C.Code § 42-1705, Newmark was at least in part providing … reference to several documents, a party can satisfy the written listing agreement requirement of D.C.Code § 42-1705 by piecing together several writings if one of the writings is signed and the writings in the circumstances clearly

Concepcion v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

606 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2009

The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. … Exemption 6 Exemption 6 protects from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6).

Donoghue v. National Archives and Records Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2024

“conducted thorough and diligent searches of relevant systems of records that were reasonably calculated to find documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request as written[,]” Williams Decl. ¶ 13, and that knowledgeable, qualified … As the CIA clearly instructed, a Glomar response is “a standard notification given to all . . . requesters and should not be taken as an indication excluded records do, or do not, exist.” See May 2022 OIG Ltr.

Weng v. Solis

842 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2012

Weng failed to establish by a preponderance of 13 the evidence that the Agency’s articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions 14 were pretext for discrimination; (4) she failed to establish by … The Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability” 5 may “be subjected to discrimination” by any federal agency “solely by reason of her or his 6 disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

Aristotle International, Inc. v. Acuant, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2023

Thus, Aristotle may “obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to any of [its] claims that arose out of the same core of operative fact as those claims which clearly fell within the scope of” Rule 4(k … [not] readily obtainable . . . qualifies for trade secret protection.”); AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC, No. 18-cv-07568, 2019 WL 4221599, at *6 (N.D. Cal.

TRIAD AT JEFFERSONVILLE I, LLC v. Leavitt

563 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

After receiving an 855A application, the new Fiscal Intermediary must review it for consistency with the sales agreement associated with the CHOW, as well as confirm that the transaction qualifies as a CHOW under applicable … As both Parties recognize, courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless the interpretation is clearly erroneous or in conflict with the applicable regulation.

Alexander v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2020

statute creates a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage . . . subjects . . . any citizen . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The Court found that the text of the statute clearly did “not punish conduct that has no effect on other members of the public; it is violated only by actual or imminent obstruction of another person[,]” and that if the

Pourabdollah v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2024

Statutory and Regulatory Background A noncitizen “who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing … Applying the two-factor test for assessing the unreasonable-delay claim, the Court has no trouble finding that the Secretary’s delay in deciding whether to “[g]rant[] or refus[e] a visa to a[] [specific] applicant” “is clearly

Nelson v. Insignia/ESG, Inc.

215 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2002

Co., 206 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C.2002) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ), the non-moving party must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position … Nat'l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992) (citations omitted). *148 In Herbert , the Circuit Court discussed its holding in In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod.

Miller v. Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 2017

at 1. 2 The plaintiff’s Complaint does not cite Title VII or any other statute as the legal basis for her claim, nor do the documents she filed in response to the Court’s Order that she “file an Amended Complaint that clearly … Supp. 3d 97, 103–04 (D.D.C. 2016) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s interference in his hiring of an attorney qualified as an extraordinary circumstance because the plaintiff “utterly fail[ed] to

Candra v. Cronen

361 F. Supp. 3d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2019

Legal Standard To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Calderón-Serra v. Wilmington Tr. … The First Circuit has authorized courts to bypass complex questions concerning statutory jurisdiction in the immigration context where "precedent clearly adumbrates the *159 results on the merits." Royal Siam Corp. v.

Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc.

322 F.R.D. 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2017

I mean, our strategy is to establish 1% positions.” Id. at 33:1–3. … Given that the plaintiffs have established typicality, this adequacy challenge fails.

Brown v. Hayden

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2021

explained to plaintiff that 3  Library of Congress Regulation (LCR) 11-310, Resolving Complaints of Discrimination, Section 4, states a staff member, or qualified … aggrieved employee first seek an administrative resolution’ before the employing government agency constitutes a precondition to bringing ‘suit against the sovereign,’ it, like any condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity

Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

151 F.R.D. 179 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1992

Frisoli’s tendered affidavit as establishing the truth of this important issue. 27. … Clearly, the Court finds that the same policy considerations which mandated dismissal of the entire action in Weisberg v.

Clay v. Howard University

128 F. Supp. 3d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2015

If the facts as alleged, which must be taken as true, fail to establish that a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be granted. See, e.g., Am. … In the context of rehiring, Plaintiff must also show that she “applied for an available job and was qualified for that position.” Amiri, 35 F. Supp. 3d at 46.

National Association of Postal Supervisors v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2023

. § 1004(a) by failing to provide sufficient compensation to attract or retain qualified management personnel and failing to establish a compensation program adequate to maintain a well-motivated workforce (id. at ¶¶ 93 … The level of discretion called for here clearly implicates the rationales for the APA record rule.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

368 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2005

Additionally, the District’s motion contends that Johnson’s claims are barred by official immunity and failure to provide required notice to the District prior to filing suit. … Establish impartial and comprehensive administrative or negotiated procedures for resolving employee grievances.” Id. § l-601.2(a)(5); cf. Robinson v.

McWilliams Ballard, Inc. v. Level 2 Development, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2010

Plaintiff clearly points to negotiations that took place between itself and the individual defendants on behalf of Level 2 and L2CP concerning the loan that was “absolutely necessary” in order for defendants to move forward … Defendants argue that the alleged “misrepresentation” that the loan would be repaid does not qualify as a fraudulent misrepresentation because if it did, “anyone who borrows money and fails to repay it would be liable

Doe v. Martin

404 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 1975

The precise issues here raised have never been decided by the United States Supreme Court and there is clearly room for disagreement on the issue presented given the conflict between earlier cases upholding disclosure statutes … Surely the recent relevations as to experience under the last administration demonstrate that supporters of the opposition were not immune.

Murphy Exploration & Production Co. v. United States Department of the Interior

167 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2000

That history clearly indicates that the subject matter of the statutory provision is administrative appeals. … Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not qualified to bring suit *9 under the citizen suit provision.