Case law

In re Metro Subway Accident Referral

630 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 1984

Therefore, WMATA was immune from liability in the tort actions asserted by respondents. … This legislation established an entirely new set of standards and procedures for the handling of non-maritime worker compensation claims in the District of Columbia.

Martin v. District of Columbia Government

78 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2015

may be barred as to Individual District Defendants based upon their qualified immunity.” … The Court notes, however, that for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis, the test articulated in Winder would have been “clearly established” law, even though Martin’s October 2008 denial of promotion (the first alleged

Caldwell v. Kagan

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2011

A district court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction if plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing. See Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. … As absolute immunity clearly protects the district court judge and the court of appeals judges from this lawsuit, all claims against those defendants must be dismissed.2 III.

Travelers Insurance v. SCM Corp.

600 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1984

They are clearly not, with respect to the transaction at issue, “customers” of telephone service. … Clearly, one of the central themes of the doctrine of absolute immunity, as enunciated in Barr , is the protection of policymaking decisions from possible attack in the Courts.

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

498 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2007

(noting the Shah’s overthrow and Iran’s establishment as a “clerical” regime). 4. … Within this statute, Congress has established certain, narrow exceptions to the longstanding legal principle of foreign sovereign immunity. 4 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604 , 1605 (2006). *277 Plaintiff Amir Reza Oveissi invokes the Act

United States v. Hubbell

11 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1998

”); In re Heuwetter, 584 F.Supp. 119, 126 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (subpoena unenforceable absent immunity because “the Government ... is clearly uncertain about the existence of the documents and [ ] the forced production of these … This Directive uses the precatory words “should” and “should not,” and even those words are qualified by the phrase “in general.”

Vann v. Salazar

883 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

Hull, 305 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To qualify for the public rights exception, the litigation must transcend the private interests of the litigants and seek to vindicate a public right.”) … The Freedmen argue that, by filing the Oklahoma action, the Nation has clearly consented to federal jurisdiction “with regard to the subject matter of this case,” Freedmen’s Mot. 5th Am.

Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Authority

424 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2006

An armed attack on a civilian bus, such as the one plaintiffs have alleged in the complaint, violates these established norms. See Kadic v. … Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that none of the organizations named as defendants in this case qualify as "military forces of any origin."

Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2026

Most of these elements are clearly satisfied in this case and require little discussion. … The question of Iran’s immunity is more involved.

Jenkins v. Bos. Hous. Court of Mass.

350 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2018

June 15, 2015) ("It is well established [...] that leave may be denied if it would reward undue delay or a lack of due diligence.") (citing Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA , 383 F.3d 7 , 12 (1st Cir. 2004) ). … Here, the state enjoys immunity; plaintiff's ADA claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Spahr v. United States

501 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2007

Jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., id. B. … Here, most of plaintiffs claims clearly fall outside § 7433’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

Brown v. Marsh

713 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 1989

Brown claims that the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 , constitutes Congress’ express waiver of sovereign immunity in this context. … It is also worth noting that the Army’s con- . tention — that the person actually chosen for the permanent position was more qualified than Brown — lacks support in the record.

Stoddard v. Carlin

799 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2011

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. … “[I]t has been well settled ... that it rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become one of its officers, as an attorney and counsellor....”

Edwards v. Wilkinson

233 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2002

Judicial Immunity The plaintiffs claims fail because judicial immunity protects the defendants from suit. 5 The principle of judicial immunity is well-established. Tinsley v. … As judicial immunity bars the plaintiffs claims, the court does not address the defendants’ sovereign and qualified immunity argu- • ments. 6 .

Robinson v. Pezzat

83 F. Supp. 3d 258 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2015

“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When analyzing the merits of a qualified immunity defense, the Court first inquires whether the plaintiff has established a constitutional injury. Saucier v.

Moore v. Motz

437 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2006

When a defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff *91 bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. … These defendants (collectively, the “federal defendants”) have filed a motion to dismiss asserting a variety of defenses, including absolute and/or qualified immunity; lack of personal jurisdiction; improper service of process

Flaherty v. Locke

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2019

“Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Federal Government is immune from suit.” Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988). And whether sovereign immunity bars a particular claim is “jurisdictional in nature.” … In arguing that the Council does qualify as an “agency” under § 702, Plaintiffs appear to overstate the Council’s authority under the MSA.

Scinto v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

608 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

Such allegations are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over non-resident BOP employees. … immunity.

Thomas v. Wilkins

61 F. Supp. 3d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2014

Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that judicial immunity ‘extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process.’”) (quoting Barr v. Matteo 360 U.S. 564, 569 (1959)); Hester v. … As explained above, these actions are clearly an “integral part of the judicial process” warranting absolute immunity from suit.

Petit v. United States Department of Education

578 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2008

Mot. at 21, the defendants argue that it is unclear whether mapping qualifies as a “related service,” id. at 23-24 (citing A. U. v. … Accordingly, the court rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that the text of the IDEA clearly dictates coverage for cochlear implant mapping. 4.