Case law

Mattison

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 29, 2025

“The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on . . . the party asserting jurisdiction.” Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2010). … Considering only those post-settlement facts, the second amended complaint does not clearly allege, among other things, what adverse actions were allegedly taken against Mr.

McGraw v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery County

952 F. Supp. 248 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1997

Furthermore, this ease clearly falls outside the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. … Indeed, § 504 regulations expressly require that each recipient of federal funds (including the school system itself) establish a self-evaluation program, with grievance proceedings that are appealable directly to the federal

President of Georgetown College v. Madden

505 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 24, 1980

The section if conceived of as a grant of immunity, avoids these anomalies. … Other states have characterized such statutes as grants of immunity 29 . Immunity from suit is substantive law for choice of law purposes. See LaChance v.

Wright v. Weinberger

391 F. Supp. 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 17, 1975

The initial denial in Anderson was clearly unsupported by the medical evidenee; Anderson was under severe restrictions on physical activity. … In the instant case, the medical evidence indicates that restrictions on lifting were imposed upon plaintiff, sucli restrictions not clearly being inconsistent with a no-disability finding. 6 .

Purnell v. Maryland

330 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2004

Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 717, 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (stating that to establish that she was qualified for the position, the employee is not required to show that she was the most qualified applicant or as qualified … Purnell’s attempt to raise a discriminatory inference based upon the reclassification of Taylor, a Caucasian employee similarly situated to Purnell, clearly is insufficient.

Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., Inc.

545 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 14, 2008

There are important requirements that must be met in order to qualify for the protections of the Act. … Because Smithfield knew that Rodriguez was able to work on September 16, after missing fewer than three consecutive calendar days of work — information that clearly places her outside the definition of “serious health condition

Parker v. Allentown, Inc.

891 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2012

Consequently, “[j]ust because a witness may be qualified as an expert in one area, ‘does not ipso facto qualify him to testily as an expert in all related ar *785 eas.’ ” Id. (quoting Shreve v. … To establish that he is qualified to testify, Mr.

Pegues v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

63 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 2014

Because the “shopkeeper’s privilege” to detain a person suspected of theft is an affirmative defense that Defendant must plead and prove—■ and not a qualified immunity from suit-and inasmuch as Plaintiff adequately has stated … And even if evidence of Pegues’s actual guilt were sufficient to establish that WalMart employees acted reasonably, a mere accusatory instrument such as the Citation is not such evidence.

Robinson v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 14, 2023

immunity. … Moreover, despite Robinson’s request to move A.T. to another class, 16 Because I conclude that the individual defendants were sued only in their official capacities, I need not reach the defense of qualified immunity

Peterson

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2026

was clearly established at the time.” … Craig has not argued that any right he may have violated was not clearly established. Thus, Craig has failed to meet his burden on the second prong of the qualified immunity test.

Bright v. Macy

278 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 1967

In 1962 there was an Army reorganization which, inter alia, resulted in the abolishment of the Chemical Corps Materiel Command and the Chemical Corps and the establishment of the United States Army Materiel Command and The … employees in the function or functions transferred or in the agency which is replaced by some other agency shall first be transferred to the replacing agency, or agencies, for employment in positions for which they are qualified

Richburg

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

Eslick (the “Officer Defendants”) without prejudice based on a failure to properly serve and failure to allege facts sufficient to overcome the officers’ qualified immunity. Id. … The Officer Defendants The Officer Defendants argue that the proposed second amended complaint is futile as it still does not overcome qualified immunity. ECF No. 61 at 2.

Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore

218 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 9, 2002

It clearly could not have produced data upon which the City actually relied in establishing the set-aside goals for 1999. Id. at 621-22 (citations, internal quotations, and footnotes omitted). … Significantly, for example, Ordinance 00-98 provides that no minority or women’s business enterprise goal will be established for some contracts, and specifically provides that if at least two qualified MWBEs are not available

Hillman v. Amazon.com, LLC

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 2, 2025

One part of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is establishing standing, the legal capacity to sue. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). … A web- site that passively hosts third-party speech qualifies as an interactive computer service.

Escobar

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

They contend that, if the complaint is not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1), it should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds. Id. at 13–15. II. … A separate order follows. 5 As the Court is dismissing the case on standing and mootness grounds, it need not consider Defendants’ remaining arguments regarding sovereign and qualified immunity

In Re Eastern Transp. Co.

102 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 1952

Nor do we believe it is necessary to rest our decision upon Section 403 because, in our opinion, Section 409 by its language clearly covers the present situation and constitutes a prohibition against abandoning these barges … manner proposed, because this will result in a menace to' navigation, without being liable to the penalties for so doing provided by Section 411, the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act give to the trustee under this Section no immunity

Turner v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc.

292 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 7, 2003

In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. … Thus, unsworn statements or expert reports do not qualify as affidavits and are not proper for consideration by the court when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. See Solis v.

Tyler v. Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2025

argument that they didn’t violate clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiff.” … Defendants’ arguments regarding the statute of limitations and qualified immunity need not be addressed as their motion is being granted on other grounds. 15

Ngala v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.

945 F. Supp. 869 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 23, 1996

In order to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he applied for an available position; (3) he was qualified … McCreary and Fryman were better qualified than Plaintiff. Defendant’s Memo in Supp. at 5-7, 1-12.

Talley v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Cpl. DiPietro and Sgt. Harding are protected from state and federal claims by qualified immunity. (ECF No. 49-1 at 11.) … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” Dist.