Case law

Carazani v. Zegarra

972 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2013

Although default judgment establishes the defaulting party’s liability for every well- pleaded allegation in the complaint, it does not automatically establish liability in the amount claimed by the plaintiff. … The plaintiff contends that she is entitled to the prevailing wages of a Level Two Housekeeper because she meets the definition of “qualified employees who have attained, either through education or experience, a good

Marcusse v. United States Department of Justice Office of Information Policy

959 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

3 FOIA Exemption 3 covers matters that are “specifically exempted by statute . . . provided that such statute either (A) [requires withholding] in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes … Rule 6(e) qualifies as a 15 statute for purposes of exemption 3 because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Gov't v.

United States v. Harris

846 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 1994

“To demonstrate adverse effect, a defendant must establish, that an ‘actual lapse in representation,’ resulted from the conflict.” Winkler v. … Tatum, 943 F.2d 370, 376 (4th Cir.1991) (“Rather, the failure to take actions that are clearly suggested from the circumstances can be as revealing.”).

Cheatham v. Nielsen

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2021

Ex. 3 at 9 4 Cheatham states that Akintola’s written statement is “unsigned [and] unattested to,” Opp’n at 13 n.3, however, it is very clearly signed and dated (August 17, 2012 at 12:00 pm), see Defs.’ … The FEMA position was open only to “Current FEMA Status Candidates,” in other words, current qualified FEMA employees. See Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 241, 250.

United States v. Thompson

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2026

Id. 35:4-7 (The Court: “So basically you don’t know if Officer 1 would qualify, as a legal matter, as an unavailable witness in this case.” AUSA-1: “I do not, and I have not done the research. . . . … Supp. 3d 42, 50, 52 (D.D.C. 2023) (concluding “the public interest would be best served by a dismissal with prejudice” because the Court was “convinced that the government pursued the case knowing it could not establish

Smartling, Inc. v. Skawa Innovation Ltd.

358 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2019

The Trade Dress At Issue As an initial matter, "the burden to clearly identify the trade dress at issue is on the plaintiff." Yankee Candle Co. , 259 F.3d at 40 n.9 (citing Landscape Forms v. … Picciotto , 73 Mass.App.Ct. 141 , 896 N.E.2d 937 , 963 (2008) ). " 'Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact ... the boundaries of what may qualify

United States v. Straker

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2009

There is little left, then, to Clarke's challenge because, as set forth above, the record clearly establishes that he was given proper Miranda warnings aboard the FBI aircraft, voluntarily waived his rights and made a … Legal Analysis Because Seales never promised De Four de facto immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation, De Four's primary argument has been eviscerated.

Ferguson v. Owen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2022

. ¶ 35. 2 NPS clearly reserves the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool area for three weeks in late June and early July for the annual Fourth of July Celebration, so the denial of his applications for those … Owens would be entitled to qualified immunity. 24 proposed amendment, within 30 days”).

Beach Tv Properties Inc. v. Soloman

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2021

Likewise, “most courts have permitted the owner or officer of a business to testify to the value or projected profits of the business, without the necessity of qualifying the witness as an accountant, appraiser, or similar … But conclusory assertions without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.

Shteynshlyuger v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2023

“Commercial information” must also be “confidential” to qualify for withholding under Exemption 4. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). For many years, the D.C. … Plaintiff does not dispute that “this might establish the commercial or financial status of some of the information,” but he does not agree that this statement is sufficient to “establish that status for all the information

United States v. Armstrong

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2020

Under § 3664(n), the government claims, the deposits into the defendant’s account qualify as “substantial resources” received “during a period of incarceration” that the defendant “shall be required to apply the value of … “Sections 3663 and 3664 of Title 18 clearly impose on the court the duty to fix the terms of restitution.” United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806, 808 (4th Cir. 1995); see also United States v.

Attias v. Carefirst, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2019

Court of Appeals clearly explained that “the better approach toward resolving [the] motion to dismiss is to analyze whether the amended complaint succeeded in stating a claim.” … It is well-established that the existence of a valid contract precludes a claim for unjust enrichment. See, e.g., Harrington v.

Elcon Enterprises, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

770 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 1991

On the basis of these submissions and their weight, the technical proposal will be scored on the established scale. … There are few experienced escalator maintenance contractors that are qualified DBEs. According to Eicon’s project manager, Barbee-Curran was “the only game in town.”

United States v. Sturgeon

District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2022

“If the legislative history of § 1505 clearly indicate[d] a more specific meaning of the term ‘corruptly,’ then the statute might constitutionally be applied to conduct” within that meaning. Jd. … To be sure, the “failure of persistent efforts to establish a standard can provide evidence of vagueness.” Johnson, 576 U.S. at 598.

IMARK Marketing Services, LLC v. Geoplast, S.P.A.

753 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2010

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (“DCRA”) in order to qualify to conduct business within the District. Id., Ex. E (DCRA Application). … Labadie Coal, 672 F.2d at 97-99 ; see also id. at 96 ("[F]ormalities are [ ] an excellent litmus of the extent to which the individuals involved actually view the corporation as a separate being."). 6 "It is clearly not necessary

Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

168 F. Supp. 3d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2016

He therefore would not have had to commit fraud or misrepresentation by lying about his criminal activities in order to qualify for LPR status during his 1981 adjustment-of-status process. … He pleads that [i]f [his] application filed in 1981 had been adjudicated within a reasonable time, it would have been adjudicated when he was clearly eligible for the adjustment

Singh v. Carter

185 F. Supp. 3d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2016

Carter, 2016 WL 837924, at *13–14 (citing authority), the plaintiff has not established that the balance of equities tips in his favor. … McConville “recently enlisted into the reserve component of the Army” and “are awaiting the initial military training necessary to qualify for military assignment.” Defs.’ Opp’n Pls.’ Mot.

Mannina v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2020

Supp. 3d 254, 262 (D.D.C. 2014) (declining to decide sovereign immunity issues based on complexity and insufficient briefing). … Mannina has established negligence by clear and convincing evidence.

Ames v. Napolitano

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 27, 2017

Under this framework, a plaintiff must first establish her prima facie case. Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2015). … Accordingly, because the July suspension does not qualify as an adverse action, Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claims fail. 6 The same result obtains as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, but for an even simpler

United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

569 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 1983

Clearly, they may sublicense patents for the manufacture of products which will assist them in providing intra-LATA service. … As for the claim that the very establishment of a CSO might give rise to antitrust problems it is well established that a joint technical organization with responsibility for setting standards does not in and of itself violate