Case law

Tharp v. Acacia Commc'ns, Inc.

321 F. Supp. 3d 206 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

A fair inference can be drawn that, if Acacia loses one of its large and profitable customers, the loss could severely impact its revenue and growth, an inference that was clearly outlined in the prospectus for investors … The prospectus qualified these statements with cautionary language about the associated risk factors that could derail the expected results.

Tierney v. Tierney

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2023

As a result, the Court of Appeals “ha[d] little difficulty in concluding [that the] directors clearly could anticipate being hauled into [a District of Columbia] court to account for their activities.” … Attending several hybrid meetings hosted in the District of Columbia as a Board member surely qualifies as “personally reach[ing]” into the District. Id. 22 243–44.

Achoe v. Clayton

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2018

The Court need not resolve that question, however, because two of the three acts clearly do not satisfy the reasonably related exception and even if the third might, Achoe has failed to state a claim based on that act in … It is well- established, however, that close supervision does not constitute an adverse employment action that supports a claim under Title VII or the ADEA. See Lester v. Natsios, 290 F.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

449 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2006

Smoking was thus established as a major cause of preventable disease. … The crux of the situation is whether there is general agreement by qualified pathologists that carcinoma ... has indeed been produced.

New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2009

GSA in turn determines whether such excess property qualifies as “surplus,” — i.e., “excess real property [that is] not required by any Federal landholding agency for its needs or the discharge of its responsibilities, as … Rather, read in proper context, it indicates only that, in HHS’ view, New Life had not clearly articulated how it intended to facilitate (i.e., deliver) such services through its proposal to provide its clients with referrals

Orellana v. Nbsb Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2018

Facts ¶ 2, and in many cases contains facts that are clearly disputed, see, e.g., Pls.’ Facts ¶ 3 n.1. However, given “the clear preference of the Federal Rules to resolve disputes on their merits,” Cohen v. … Ct. 513, 516 (2014) (“Enacted in 1938, the FLSA established minimum wage and overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of [forty] hours in each workweek.

Rogers v. Kijakazi

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2023

During these periods she cannot see clearly, experiencing blurred vision and infection. Id. at 82. … Plaintiff takes public transit unless necessary due to “car accidents and history” and drives only when she can see clearly. Id. at 81.

National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2017

With respect to Counts One and Two, thus, the plaintiff clearly obtained judicial relief that changed the parties’ legal relationship. … , and Twenty-One), but eligibility is only established with respect to four.

Gatore v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

This evidence clearly supports the existence of a policy or practice of the defendant to never provide any part of an assessment to FOIA requesters. See Muckrock, LLC, 300 F. … Opp’n at 13–16 (arguing that the individual plaintiffs have failed to establish numerosity).

Khan v. Department of Homeland Security (Dhs)

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2023

But if an attorney makes a FOIA request for a client, the client has standing to challenge the government’s response if the attorney “clearly indicate[d] that it is 6 … Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144–145 (1989) (To qualify as an agency record, the agency must have created or obtained the documents “at the time the FOIA request is made.”). 4 Plaintiffs also conceded to the

Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476

509 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2007

D)), that arrangement clearly arose after Plaintiffs termination by the Local and therefore cannot demonstrate interrelation of operations at the relevant point in time. … Eitches’ e-mail “is clearly defamatory, as it accuses [Plaintiff] of stealing and fraud[, accusations that] are per se defamatory,” and that “Mr.

Chen v. Bell-Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2011

Clearly, ordinary home-buyers do not qualify as "merchants" within the meaning of the DCCPPA, as they do not sell consumer goods or services, and are, in fact, "on the 'consume' rather than the supply side of the transaction … But these payments were clearly written on the settlement statement.

Aviel v. Gor

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2025

Members of the Board serve six-year terms and, “upon the expiration of [a member’s] term of office[, the] member shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and shall have qualified.” Id. … DOGE Service Temporary Organization,” which the executive order also established. Id. § 3(b). The U.S.

Said v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2018

“To qualify as direct evidence, a statement or remark must ‘itself show[] . . . bias in the employment decision.’” Conn v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 149 F. … [or] pregnancy, miscarriage, or the birth of a child” (emphasis added)), which do not necessarily qualify as a “disability” within the meaning of the DCHRA, see D.C.

Annicelli v. Barrett

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

That other Board “was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting error or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.” … The Court disagrees: Annicelli clearly raised the issue in his application.

Wildearth Guardians v. Jewell

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2020

As described below, the FLPMA establishes a series of steps that BLM must take when leasing federal lands for oil and gas development. Id. § 1712(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n). … BLM clearly did more here. However, the cases do speak to the intuitive appeal of Plaintiffs’ position.

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan

616 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2009

Statutory and Regulatory Background It is well established that ERISA does not require employers to establish retirement plans for their employees and does not mandate any particular level of benefits that must be provided … Attempting to bolster its interpretation, Hilton argues that the “Pension Committee’s interpretation of a disputed Plan provision should be upheld unless clearly unreasonable,” relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Firestone

Mountain States Health Alliance v. Sebelius

128 F. Supp. 3d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2015

That requirement is further explicated in section 310 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual, which specifies that, in order to qualify as a “reasonable collection effort, a provider’s effort must be similar to the effort … According to the Board, “[t]he requirements at issue in [the Providers’ administrative] appeal regarding reasonable collection efforts are clearly not new law or policy.” AR 16.

Abdulrazzaq v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2019

The injunctive relief Petitioner seeks, see supra at 15-16, is clearly inconsistent with this authority as he seeks to select his own medical provider and direct his own treatment. … That scheme establishes “procedural protections and rigorous review mechanisms for military commissions.” Id. at 120.

Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2023

Schoenman v. 3 As noted above, qualifying statutes under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(ii) may refer to either “particular types of matters to be withheld[,]” or to “particular criteria for withholding” information, see … Thus, it is completely unclear why proximate details regarding the event, whether antecedent or subsequent, would somehow be immune from causing a victim trauma.