Case law

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2022

But CBP would need to state that clearly as opposed to stating that CBP searched for merely the July 10, 2019 memorandum. … See id. at 70 (“The agency’s burden is to establish that documents do not constitute the working law.” (cleaned up)).

Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2010

Ailes, 428 A.2d 816, 821 (D.C. 1981) (finding that when a plaintiff has established a right to accrued paid leave and has further established the amount of leave accrued, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove “an … The evidence in the record clearly establishes that Ventura was employed by defendants in December 2007.

Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States

773 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2011

Just as the burden of establishing that the agency action is arbitrary or capricious rests with the party *74 challenging agency action, so too must that party establish that the errors ascribed were prejudicial. … Clearly, this is not the law.

Capitol Breach Grand Jury Investigations Within the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2021

imposed restriction of disclosure not just to 28 government personnel, but only to government personnel needed to assist in the enforcement of federal criminal law clearly … The person seeking disclosure must first identify a relevant “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i); then, second, establish that the requested disclosure is “preliminarily to” or “in connection

Sabra v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2023

The documents withheld under Exemption 7 qualify as “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). … “It is well established that the only public interest relevant for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is one that focuses on ‘the citizens’ right to be informed about what their government is up to.’” Davis v. U.S.

In Re: Application for an Order Permitting Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2019

District courts, including in this district, have regularly found that arbitrations conducted pursuant to Bilateral Investment Treaties, and specifically by the ICSID, qualify as international tribunals under the statute … Asking this Court for that same discovery from Karkey’s U.S. counsel, Arnold & Porter, is clearly an end-run around the Tribunal’s evidentiary procedures, which apply to both Karkey and Pakistan.

Sierra Club v. Jewell

177 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2016

The agency’s analysis clearly conceded that the 11,000 elk population target was being met. NPS-7547. … FWS clearly referred to the document as an “addendum to our biological opinion.” FWS-1661.

ANACOSTIA RIVERKEEPER, INC. v. Jackson

798 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2011

Just as a State “cannot immunize itself from the CWA’s important TMDL provisions through the simple expedient of refusing to submit TMDL calculations,” Kingman Park, 84 F.Supp.2d at 6 , it cannot similarly frustrate the Act … On their face, however, both statements are severely qualified opinions — no better than quasi-educated guesses — rather than reasoned expressions of the Agency’s judgment.

Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

This decision does not establish, however, that TTB failed to consider a relevant factor. … Supp. 3d at 6 (finding that lack of any evidence on key issue was a qualifying “gross procedural deficiency”).

Krukas v. Aarp

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2019

These allegations suffice to establish an injury in fact at this stage. … CODE §§ 28-3901 to 28-3903; id. § 28-3901(c)) (establishing enforceable right to truthful information).

Rogers v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2019

Because “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [a federal court’s] limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the … Supp. 3d 48, 55 (D.D.C. 2017)), and that “there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity for a breach of contract claim seeking specific 8 performance against the federal

Labow v. U.S. Department of Justice

66 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2014

. & A. in Opp’n to 2 Under Exemption 6, “[p]ersonnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” are exempt from disclosure … See id. at 31–32. 28 Exemption (b)(7)(E) indicates that the qualifying phrase (‘if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law’) modifies

Baystate Medical Center v. Leavitt

545 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

... because of his or her income”—that is, the SSI payments established under 42 U.S.C. § 1382 . … Moreover, an SSA tape incorporating the inactive and forced pay records would clearly be superior because it would yield a fuller set of SSI recipients.

Saunders v. Berryhill

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2020

STANDARD OF REVIEW To qualify for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income respectively under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, a claimant must establish that she is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C … Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, meaning she does not qualify for automatic disability under step three. A.R. at 18.

In Re Federal National Mortgage Ass'n Securities, Derivative, & "Erisa" Litigation

4 F. Supp. 3d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2013

Accordingly, the requested award falls well within the range of reasonableness established by other cases. … (Amidst the financial crisis of 2008, Congress established FHFA to replace OFHEO as Fannie Mae’s independent regulator.) 9 .

United States v. Owens

District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2021

The BWC footage provided shows defendant was facing the long line of MPD officers passing close along his left side and all of these officers were clearly identifiable as MPD officers with clear markings on their uniforms … and opposition thereto, the evidence proffered by both parties, including at the detention hearing held on May 10, 2021, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that the government has failed to meet its burden of establishing

United States v. Otunyo

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2020

The risk presented by the pandemic is clearly serious, and the Court acknowledges that this risk is greater in a detention environment where inmates are housed in close proximity to one another. See Banks v. … officer that the person will appear as required and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community,” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i), and, further, must be “‘appropriate’ in terms of actually being qualified

Dugan v. Department of Justice

82 F. Supp. 3d 485 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2015

They are, in many cases, procedurally barred, repetitive, not clearly stated, or frivolous.”). … Supp. 2d at 27-28; see id. at 27 (“A pending appeal of a criminal conviction qualifies as a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding for purposes of Exemption 7(A)” because of “the possibility of future law enforcement

Littlewolf v. Hodel

681 F. Supp. 929 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1988

Plaintiffs do not, however, clearly state what property was taken and when the taking occurred. … Mandamus will issue “ ‘only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and clearly defined.

Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2018

. ¶ 12 (“All available SPPD staff are now assigned to RTR projects subject to court-ordered deadlines established in these other cases, and the workload for these 33 other RTRs 3 The EPA also identifies several other … when Congress has ordered the EPA to act by a certain deadline, “it is inappropriate for [the] agency to divert[,] to purely discretionary rulemaking[,] resources that conceivably could go towards fulfilling obligations clearly