Case law

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

White v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2018

There are two circumstances in which a private individual can sue a state despite Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) where a state consents to suit, thus waiving its immunity; or (2) where Congress abrogates the immunity … . § 1983 CLAIM It is well established that neither states nor official state actors qualify as “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

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.

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).

Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran

78 F. Supp. 3d 379 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2015

That section establishes that a foreign state has no immunity [I]n any case . . . [1] in which money damages are sought [2] against a foreign state [3] for personal injury or death that was [4] caused by [ … Thus, the final element for waiver of sovereign immunity under section 1605A is met and defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity.

Dahman v. Embassy of the State of Qatar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2018

Sovereign-Immunity Exception Dahman must next establish that one of the FSIA’s statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity exists here. … Damages Having established liability, the Court finally addresses damages.

Banco Central De Reserva v. Riggs National Bank

919 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1994

As a general rule, courts must give great deference to the intent of foreign governments to establish separate entities. … The deposit with Riggs was clearly intended to have extraterritorial effect — it was an extraterritorial act.

Wooten v. Abbott

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2025

Defendant moved to dismiss these claims on multiple grounds, including improper venue, lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, improper service, and qualified immunity. … ANALYSIS Plaintiff has failed to establish any extraordinary circumstances warranting this Court’s reconsideration.

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.

Strange v. Chumas

580 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1983

This provision clearly conveys an intent to waive WMATA’s immunity from suit, but only to a limited extent. Relying upon Hodges v. … Read together, it is apparent that section 80 of the Compact was intended to waive WMATA’s immunity with respect to a particular class of cases, and section 81 was intended to establish in which courts that class of cases

Cause of Action Institute v. Eggleston

224 F. Supp. 3d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2016

Plaintiff is clearly correct to concede that White House consultation is not “per se” unlawful or unnecessary. … “‘[A] plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.’” Stone v. Holder, 859 F.

Dayton v. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

672 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1986

At oral argument in this case, however, counsel for the plaintiffs suggested that 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(1), which provides that the sovereign immunity of a foreign instrumentality can be waived, establishes a separate basis … The agreement does not, therefore, establish an “unambiguous” controlling legal principle in this case.

In Re Bullock

103 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1952

This immunity has been enjoyed because of the historic secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the grand jury. … In this state this secrecy is established by statute, and penalties may be imposed upon one violating that statute.

West v. Huvelle

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2019

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, see, e.g., Moore v. Bush, 535 F. Supp. 2d 46, 47 (D.D.C. 2008). … The Court agrees and therefore will not address the defendants’ argument for dismissing the Complaint against the same defendants based on qualified immunity.

Nyman v. Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance

967 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 1997

Motions for a new trial “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. … To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for a promotion; (3) she was not selected; and

Davis v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2019

When a defendant asserts immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff 2 to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted in … In other words, Plaintiff claims that WMATA 4 should not have put the driver on the road because it knew she was not qualified or adequately trained to operate a bus.

Leopold v. Pittman

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

the merits, which courts may render only after jurisdiction has been established”); Kiakombua v. … As an initial matter, the 36 USCP Directives that do not qualify as security information also do not qualify as “public records,” as that term has been described by the D.C. Circuit.

Thornwell v. United States

471 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1979

United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), the Supreme Court established the doctrine of intra-military immunity, and where plaintiffs have sought recovery for injuries sustained in the course of military … The constitutional and intentional tort claims raised in counts I-IV clearly involve such injuries.

Miller v. Clinton

924 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2013

Plaintiff argues that § 633a(c)’s reference to “such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter” so clearly encompasses the monetary relief that plaintiff seeks that “[t]he sovereign immunity … Similarly, back pay is clearly an available remedy, see 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b), but the Court cannot yet determine the period of time for which plaintiff would be entitled to back pay.