Case law

Cuneo Law Group, P.C

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2009

I at 12, there is no requirement in the law that such clauses do so in order to qualify as a liquidated damages clause. … Moreover, the 2002 Settlement Agreement clearly bars the defendant from bringing these claims.

Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian

772 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2011

Krasne, the Court ruled that he was qualified to testify as an expert on issues of corporate governance. See 11/19 PM Tr. at 4. … Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the Assembly’s mailing lists qualify as trade secrets under D.C. law, Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants are liable for misappropriation.

Ames v. Nielsen

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2018

To establish a non-retaliatory reason for his non-promotion, the 5 The instruction reads as follows: Some evidence was admitted for a limited purpose only. … Supp. 3d at 84 (holding that the July suspension did not qualify as an adverse action because Plaintiff failed to show objectively tangible harm); id.

Yueh-Lan Wang Ex Rel. Wen-Young Wong v. New Mighty U.S. Trust

322 F.R.D. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2017

See 6 Wright & Miller, § 1487 (“If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.”) (collecting cases). … After all, the relevant facts were clearly well known to Defendants, if not Plaintiffs, from the start.

White Coat Waste Project v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2019

For the same reasons, the Court need not address the issue of whether the protocol qualifies as an agency final decision. 15  The Court is not persuaded that the principal investigator … In this case, the VA “has established only the speculative potential of a privacy invasion without any degree of likelihood.” Norton, 309 F.3d at 37.

Individual Reference Services Group, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

145 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2001

In fact, Trans Union does not contest that it qualifies as a credit bureau. … Regulations prohibiting the use and disclosure of that information without the consent of the consumer clearly advance that interest. United States v.

Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Media

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2020

Plaintiffs Have Established a Likelihood of Success on the Merits. … Although “[e]conomic harm . . . clearly constitutes an injury-in-fact,” Carpenters Indus.

LaRoque v. Holder

755 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2010

Nor, as the Court explained, has the Supreme Court “ever identified initiative proponents as Article-III-qualified defenders of the measures they advocated.” … Thus, even if plaintiffs could establish that they suffered an injury in fact, they cannot establish “redressability” as required by Article III. E.

Friends of Animals v. Pendley

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2021

unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … But here, the 2019 Instruction Memorandum expressly qualifies its scope by directing BLM field officials to adhere to its guidance “when feasible.” TP 12862.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2026

Shapiro is purportedly “uniquely qualified to speak to . . . how the Department came to submit a manifestly incompetent Declaration—which goes to bad faith and obduracy.” ECF No. 84 at 21. … However, none suggests that “obduracy” in opposing a fee petition will help a requestor establish that it is entitled to fees under the statute.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2020

Such a rule would immunize vast swaths of the Corps’ analysis from judicial or expert review. Cf., e.g., Sierra Club v. … The Court need only address the second element to find that this case does not qualify for the exception. The Tribes argue that “the legal questions presented” are “all but certain to arise again.”

Harris v. Wackenhut Services, Inc.

590 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2008

Even assuming, however, that the plaintiff could establish that Messrs. … ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1010 (8th Cir.2005)) (stating that commenting about absence of black employees, without alleging discrimination, was insufficient to qualify as protected activity); Sitar v. Ind.

Lattisaw v. District of Columbia

118 F. Supp. 3d 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2015

The amended complaint contains relatively few factual allegations with respect to Lattisaw’s allegedly involuntary retirement—the third pivotal event—but certain details are clearly stated. … Code § 38- 1202.01(a) (establishing Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia and providing that the Board may “[s]ue and be sued”).

Salazar v. Dc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2014

Those amounts are clearly excessive. 7 Defendants' compare the hours spent by counsel for the Managed Care Organizations in these matters and the hours spent by Plaintiffs' counsel. … Cunningham; has litigated public interest cases on behalf of poor people extensively in cases in the District of Columbia; as well as other areas of the country; and, therefore, is fully qualified to do the kind of last

Ready for Ron v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2023

This is just such a circumstance, where the provision of mailing lists and the like without charge has long been understood to qualify as an in-kind contribution. Christian Coalition, 552 F. … identified individual as a candidate for Federal office or encouraging a clearly identified individual to become a candidate for Federal office.

Smith v. Jackson

539 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2008

establish that he was living up to his employer’s expectations. … Vincent's subsequent actions clearly indicated his belief that Plaintiff’s CWS had been revoked.

INSLAW, Inc. v. United States (In Re INSLAW, Inc.)

83 B.R. 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 1988

The procedure for handling claims of bias or conflict of interest was well-established at DOJ. … Modification 12, as clearly explained by Mr.

United States Ex Rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.

505 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2007

In these capacities, the Disclosure Statement stated that Anderson “played a leading role in the organization and activities of the ‘Frankfurt Club’ of U.S. contractors qualified to do business in Egypt for construction projects … Harbert, the disclosure statement also clearly detailed Mr. Harbert’s ownership and high-level involvement in the various companies alleged to have participated in the fraud. 14 Mr.

Sai v. Transportation Security Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 2020

To qualify for withholding under this privilege, “information must be both ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative.’” Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992). … Dkt. 174-1 at 20; see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (permitting withholding when disclosure of information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”).

Johnson v. LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2001-4

451 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2006

Johnson would qualify for Loan II, Mr. Thompson misrepresented her $1173 monthly income on the loan application to be over $1900, so that she would qualify for the $711 monthly payments. Id. ¶21. … The other cases Defendant cites to support its position are clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Williams v. Firstplus Home Loan Owner Trust, 310 F.Supp.2d 981 (W.D.Tenn.2004), Mull v.