Case law

Stewart v. Roth

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2022

The party invoking federal jurisdiction-in this case, plaintiff-bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … The Circuit agreed and found that the costs incurred by purchasing credit-monitoring services, along with.other mitigation costs, qualified as an injury-in- fact.

National Mining Ass'n v. Jackson

768 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 2011

The court held that “the directive clearly established] a substantive rule declaring that third-party human studies are now deemed immaterial in EPA regulatory decision[-]making,” id. at 883 , and further concluded that the … Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.2009) (finding that the record clearly established that RoDa was being denied its right to interest in its real property because it had been “denied unfettered ownership” due to the defendant

Kent v. North Carolina Department of Revenue

716 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2010

The Act does not clearly cover damages, but the principle of sovereign immunity, for the reasons set forth in this memorandum, prevents this Court from permitting Kent’s action to go forward including insofar as he seeks … These legal authorities, which establish the federal judiciary, U.S. CONST, art.

United States v. Jaffe

98 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 1951

That this is clearly so was subsequently recognized by the Sub-Committee in its report, and in that connection it made recommendation *197 that an adequate statute of immunity be formulated and adopted. 5 In the light of … Such safeguards as Congress deems proper could be provided against any improvident use of such immunity.

Keenan v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

643 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 1986

Significantly, the language of Section 80 expressly establishes WMATA’s immunity, and that language has remained unchanged. … Clearly, that is the case here.

Valencia v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2011

FINDINGS OF FACT Under the FSIA, a court cannot simply enter default judgment against a foreign state, but must, out of respect for the principle of sovereign immunity, ensure that plaintiffs “establish [their] … The actions of defendants here certainly qualify under this standard.

Ben-Yishai v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2022

The Court qualifies Dr. … This is clearly sufficient to establish the defendants' liability under a battery theory. 6 In the portion of their Complaint alleging wrongful death, plaintiff: state that the Attack caused "decedent, her estate and

Kettey v. Saudi Ministry of Education

53 F. Supp. 3d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2014

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Defendants next argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because all three Defendants are immune from suit pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act … This statement, however, is insufficient to establish a claim of fraud by Defendants.

Rosenkrantz v. Inter-American Development Bank

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2021

The IDB has been so designated on two occasions, and therefore qualifies for immunity under the IOIA. See Exec. Order No. 10,873, 25 Fed. Reg. at 3,097; Exec. Order No. 11,019, 27 Fed. Reg. at 4,145. … In determining that the FSIA “governs the immunity of international organizations,” the Supreme Court in Jam noted, without deciding, that “it is not clear” that even “the lending activity of all development banks qualifies

Williams v. Romarm

187 F. Supp. 3d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

In their opposition, plaintiffs dispute defendant’s claim of sovereign immunity, contending that defendant’s actions qualify as “commercial activity.” … Accordingly, a “district court authorizing discovery to determine whether immunity bars jurisdiction must proceed with circumspection, lest the evaluation of the immunity itself encroach unduly on the benefits the 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.

Cobell v. Babbitt

30 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 1998

To consider summary judgment before the completion of this discovery would clearly be improper on the facts of this case. … Lujan , however, is clearly distinguishable from this case.

United States v. Gutierrez-Ochoa

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2026

TRIA § 201 TRIA § 201(a) is codified as a note to a section of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1610 (titled “Exceptions to the Immunity from Attachment or Execution”), and provides … Further, the terrorist party must not have immunity under specified provisions of the FSIA, which generally grants foreign states and their agents and instrumentalities “immun[ity] from attachment, arrest, and execution

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.

Schonberg v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2011

its sovereign immunity, Schonberg has failed to establish that the MRA or earmarks violate the Constitution. … Schonberg has not established that sovereign immunity does not bar his claim, nor has he established that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity in this context, and the United States’ motion to dismiss for

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.

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.

Bloch v. United States Census Bureau

754 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2010

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Defendant correctly argues that plaintiffs claims for libel and slander are barred by sovereign immunity. … “When the Bureau needed employees for a [particular] operation, selection parameters, such as geographic location and language skill needs, were entered into a computer program,” id. ¶ 6, and the “best qualified individuals

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.

Laukus v. United States

691 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2010

Because Laukus’s APA claim clearly relates to the IRS’s tax collection activity, it is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. … Laukus does not clearly delineate the extent to which he is seeking damages on behalf of American Pride Trust as opposed to himself.