Case law

Kennedy v. Novo A/S

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2019

. ¶ 1 (“The Ferrara [r]elators support the award of [the] relator’s share to [r]elator Kennedy and submit that only [r]elator Kennedy, or, in the alternative, the Ferrara [r]elators[,] qualify as ‘first-to-file’ under the … Relator Kennedy argues that she “clearly preserved her rights to a share of the proceeds of the action, [ ] including any alternate remedies.” Kennedy’s Alternate Remedies Reply at 24.

Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco Corporation

113 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2015

The picture that clearly emerges from these numbers is that, in many areas across the country, USF and Sysco already control a substantial share of the market for local broadline distribution. … This internal assessment clearly supports Dr. Israel's local market share calculations. Defendants offer a different ordinary course document to rebut Dr. Israel's market share calculations.

Heffernan v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2018

Thus, the “[d]efendant[] must identify the function and significance . . . in the agency’s decision making process of all redacted and withheld documents to qualify them as exempt under the deliberative process privilege … And, the plaintiff’s reliance on a September 2007 e-mail between Gormley and the plaintiff as the only support for his speculative position is misplaced, primarily because that e-mail clearly indicates that the actions

Ferag AG v. Grapha-Holding AG

935 F. Supp. 1238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 1996

Nevertheless, I find that the Reist patent clearly and convincingly suggested the Weber device when Reist claimed that the “above-described embodiments may be used for performing a variety of operations,” such as assembling … However, Ferag has established that its activity was intermittent because of company demands for development of other products. See May 16, 1996 Trial Tr. at 203 (Hansch cross).

Buffalo Field Campaign v. Bernhardt

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2022

Although the Service concluded “that the . . . petitions, together, provide[d] substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the [Yellowstone bison] may qualify as a DPS,” id. at 397, it concluded that they … 3000 [animals] . . . to avoid inbreeding depression and maintain genetic variation,” id. at 144, the 2014 petition asserts that “the size of the [n]orthern range herd is marginal and that of the [c]entral range herd is clearly

Cobell v. Norton

407 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2005

Defendants qualify their characterization of plaintiffs' success, however, in an attempt to reduce that award with the time plaintiffs spent litigating those claims which may not have succeeded. … This Court found both trustee-delegates unreasonably breached their clearly delineated fiduciary responsibilities toward plaintiff class.

Hurry v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2022

Hurry is qualified to acquire control of the Bank and would cause undue burden and delay given that the deadline to acquire the Bank shares is March 31, 2018.” 1 Id. at 383. … Substantive disputes of this type are properly resolved through the “on the record” hearing and appellate process established in the CBCA.

Federal Trade Commission v. Match Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2023

Supp. 3d at 85, and the opposition to the Petition is clearly “relevant . . . to the central claims of the litigation,” Harris, 204 F. Supp. 3d at 17–18. … Thus, the heavy burden of establishing an abuse of process is on the target of the adminis- trative subpoena. See id.

Greenpeace, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2018

Alternatively, facilities may reduce their chemical holdings to levels that do not qualify them as high risk. Plaintiff Greenpeace, Inc. … DHS has clearly identified the exempt material (which is marked with redaction boxes) and described it: “The redacted portions are facility names that would allow an individual to identify the specific facility.”

Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2012

In that case, FDA established priority for the filing of the certifications based upon when the filer notified the patent holder. Id. … In King, the FCC had determined that the plaintiff’s proposed radio program did not qualify for a statutory exemption, but it had failed to apply a two-part test that it previously found necessary to making such a determination

United States v. Beler

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2019

The parties clearly expected that, at some point, the pretrial detention motion would need to be resolved at a hearing before the magistrate judge. See Min. … At least one other facility, in Englewood, Colorado, is available to conduct competency evaluations, but the government has not clarified how many other facilities are qualified to perform those evaluations.

Wilderness Society v. Haaland

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2024

“When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive … BLM clearly selected the available parcels with sage grouse protection in mind. But its analysis still falls short of the hard-look review that NEPA requires in several respects.

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Sebelius

139 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2015

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court also held that the application of the expressio unius canon “offers too thin a reed to support the conclusion that Congress has clearly resolved an issue.” Id. … The Court of Appeals reasoned that “the statutory requirement that the Secretary ‘shall’ develop certain aspects of the payment system is qualified by the Secretary’s authority to ‘adjust[ ]’ those payment amounts.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2023

Here, however, the Commission clearly had not “terminate[d] its proceedings” as to CREW’s administrative complaint as of May 2018. … It is now well-established that Congress “must do something special, beyond setting an exception-free deadline, to tag a statute of limitations as jurisdictional and so prohibit a court from tolling it,” United States v

Howard Town Center Developer, LLC v. Howard University

278 F. Supp. 3d 333 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2017

App. at 9, ECF No. 65 (acknowledging that the check for $1,475,000 to Closeline was “clearly made out by ‘Property Mgmt Acct Svcs LLC,’ i.e., PMAS, not [the Developer]”). … [b]ut there are occasions when the limited liability sought to be obtained through the corporation will be qualified or denied.” Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U.S. 349, 361–62 (1944).

Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

37 F. Supp. 3d 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The only substantive difference is that the Final Report more clearly explains how including the Macondo spill in the average drastically changes the statistics for a typical event. … development and production stages unless those stages are scrutinized now appears both inaccurate and incompatible with the stage-by-stage environmental review process that courts have pegged as being Congress’s purpose in establishing

Pugh v. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBRYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

530 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2008

This action is brought pursuant to the “terrorism exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(7), arising from the September 19, 1989 bombing of Union des Transports Aeriens (“UTA”) Flight … Oct. 7, 2005) (“[tjhere is no set formula established for calculating damages for family members such as Plaintiffs [here].”).

Hill v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2016

Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2003) (“DCPS’ failure to comply with [the parent’s] request clearly violates the language of [34 C.F.R. § 300.303].”). … The Court finds that the school district’s failure to provide any transition services qualified as a material deviation from R.H’s IEPs. See Joaquin, 2015 WL 5175885, at *7.

United States v. White

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2022

Boulding, 960 F.3d 774, 784 (6th Cir. 2020)). 10 In this regard, 10 White II cautioned this Court to “base its determinations on accurate factual findings” and expressed concern that White-2019 “appears to rely on clearly … 29 separate infractions,” six of which “involved violent conduct, 3 involved dangerous weapons, 1 involved a threat to commit violence, and 3 involved the possession of illegal drugs,” with eight separate infractions qualifying

Cobell Ex Rel. Cobell v. Jewell

234 F. Supp. 3d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2017

Oct. 2, 1992) (quantum meruit valuation established on the basis of attorney’s billing rate). … In each, the applicant sought to recover fees from the government, which enjoys sovereign immunity from paying interest on accrued fees.