Case law

Coyne v. Grupo Industrial Trieme, S.A. de C.V.

105 F.R.D. 627 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 1985

These cases establish a strong presumption in favor of quashing service whenever a defendant enters the jurisdiction for settlement talks at plaintiff’s invitation and the plaintiff has not clearly and unequivocally alerted … Some courts have gone so far as to establish a per se rule of immunity from service for such defendants unless the plaintiff specifically advises the defendant that he will be served with process immediately if negotiations

Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim

932 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 1996

Thus, the first two requirements of Rule 15(c)(3) clearly are satisfied. … The IFC argues that, even if the FSIA applies, the actions complained of here fall within the “discretionary function” exemption to the respondeat superior liability established by the FSIA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(5).

Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

105 F. Supp. 3d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2015

Any movant that could show any damages against an agency with sovereign immunity—even as little as $1—would satisfy the standard. … The wiser formula requires that the economic harm be significant, even where it is irretrievable because a defendant has sovereign immunity.”

Jones v. Quintana

872 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2012

Upon the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, Quintana moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim (Count III), claiming that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … On December 11, 2011, the Court denied Quintana’s motion, concluding that “the question of whether Quintana is entitled to qualified immunity must await further development of the factual record.” Jones v.

City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. Andrus

458 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 1978

Section 10 of the A.P.A. clearly establishes the policy that judicial review of administrative action should be widely available. Id. 430 U.S. at 104 , 97 S.Ct. at 983 . … Clearly, section 2410 alone is irrelevant to this case since no lien interests are involved.

Hubbard v. Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

739 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 1990

The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it. United States v. … As explained in earlier opinions, Hubbard’s case does not qualify for any of the statutory exceptions to this rule of immunity. Hubbard’s claim for backpay, therefore, is denied.

Rong v. Liaoning Provincial Government

362 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2005

“[T]he question is whether the facts alleged are sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of this Court under an exception to immunity under the FSIA and is sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” … which clearly constituted tangible property. ' Accordingly, intangible property was not at issue in Altmann .

United Nuclear Corp. v. Clark

584 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1984

In the first place, as noted above, it is clearly established that the Indian tribes are not bound by the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, supra, 436 U.S. at 56 , 98 S.Ct. at 1675 . … In such nations as the Soviet Union the political authorities are clearly supreme, and even in Great Britain Parliament retains the ultimate authority to overrule the courts.

Xp Vehicles, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Energy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2015

immunity. … ’ constitutional claims (see id. at 29–31); and that, in any event, the Individual Capacity Defendants are protected from liability by qualified immunity (id. at 41–43).

Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran

885 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2012

Attachment & Execution under the FSIA “It is a well-established rule of international law that the public property of a foreign sovereign is immune from legal process without the consent of that sovereign.” … The parties also agree that Iran qualifies as a “terrorist party” under TRIA § 201(d)(4).

Forras v. Rauf

39 F. Supp. 3d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2014

The “broad” protections afforded by the Act “follow[ ] ‘the lead of other jurisdictions, which have similarly extended absolute or qualified immunity to individuals engaged in protected actions’” by enacting anti-SLAPP … Liability “clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965).

Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. Wheeler

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2021

Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, “a claim barred by sovereign immunity lacks subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed under a 12(b)(1) motion.” Scruggs v. … “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated.” Id.

In Re Mutual Fund Sales Antitrust Litigation

374 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1973

company securities which is totally inconsistent with antitrust concepts and which accordingly creates, as Congress clearly intended, an exemption and immunity from antitrust liability for the defendant dealers' conduct … unconscionable" and "grossly excessive" sales loads, and then-Section 22(c) empowered the SEC to issue superseding rules for both NASD members and non-members. [15] § 15A(b)(8), 15 U.S.C. § 78 o -3(b)(8). [16] The SEC may also grant qualified

Ferguson v. McDonough

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2022

No candidate qualifies. The latter two bases are easily dismissed because they are not federal statutes. The execu- tive order indeed forbids discrimination “based on an individual’s status as a parent.” Exec. … Thus, “established law plainly prohibits” such a claim. Jefferies, 916 F. Supp. 2d at 47.

Allied Telecom Group, LLC v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2023

But the District (the only named defendant) has not asserted sovereign immunity. … “A complaint seldom will disclose undisputed facts clearly establishing the defense.” Menominee, 614 F.3d at 532 (quotation and brackets omitted).

Montuya v. Chedid

779 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2011

Diplomatic immunity “may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual.” 22 U.S.C. § 254d. … Policymakers in Congress and the Executive Branch clearly have believed that diplomatic immunity not only ensures the efficient functioning of diplomatic mission in foreign states, but fosters goodwill and enhances relations

Gebre LLC v. Kyrgyz Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2022

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., a court shall not enter a default judgment against a foreign state “unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence … Kyrgyzstan is not immune under the FSIA. The next question to be determined is whether Kyrgyzstan is immune from suit in this Court under the FSIA.

Cloonan v. Mukasey

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

The Attorney General’s certification establishes a presumption that Barnes acted within the scope of his employment when the allegedly defamatory statements were made. … due to the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran

864 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2012

Tuly’s severe physical injuries, Daniel’s death, and the family’s mental anguish clearly qualify under FSIA § 1605A(a)(1). 10 While the First Amended Complaint does … Here, the established facts warrant waiver of defendants’ sovereign immunity as provided by the FSIA. First, Iran has long been designated by the U.S.

PHE, Inc. v. Department of Justice

139 F.R.D. 249 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 1991

“With respect to the claim of confidential business information, this standard demands that the company prove that the disclosure will result in a clearly defined and very serious injury to its business.” … The Court declines the plaintiffs’ proposal to, in effect, grant them “use immunity,” a privilege reposited solely with the Executive Branch.