Case law

IT & E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.

747 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Moreover, private parties acting in compliance with clearly articulated government policies and programs are immunized from antitrust liability to the same extent as the government entity. … to the qualified immunity afforded to state and *12 local governments.

United States v. Navarro

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2023

Br.], at 10–11; June 21, 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 90 [hereinafter June Hr’g Tr.], at 83–84 (defense counsel agreeing that Defendant is entitled only to qualified immunity). … See Testimonial Immunity Before 1 The Department of Justice did not publicly announce its view that a former aide of a former President is entitled to no more than qualified testimonial immunity until after Defendant

Mercurio v. Town of Sherborn

287 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity for their conduct even if they used excessive force. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Ghawanmeh v. Islamic Saudi Academy

672 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2009

Because defendants, who bear the burden of establishing that none of the FSIA exceptions to sovereign immunity apply, *9 challenge only the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs jurisdictional claims, the Court will take plaintiffs … Clearly, there can be no more obvious and implicit waiver of sovereign immunity than the sovereign’s express intent to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court as demonstrated by a choice of law clause within

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … The qualified-immunity inquiry can be resolved on either of its two prongs: (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a violation of a constitutional right, or (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Because of this similarity, courts’ analysis of the qualified privilege mirrors the qualified-immunity inquiry.

Mendaro v. World Bank

717 F.2d 610 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 1983

that Article VII section 3 constitutes a broad waiver of immunity from all suits commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction located in specified territories, subject to two clearly expressed exceptions: the Bank is absolutely … It is unlikely that a waiver of immunity from employee actions is necessary to attract highly qualified staff members (see Articles of Agreement, supra note 2, at art.

Gilliam v. United States Department of Justice

128 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2015

Supp. 2d 300, 311 (D.D.C. 2013) (stating that “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity” at the motion to dismiss stage). … Thus, Plaintiff faces a high bar to establish that the individual law enforcement officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Messerschmidt, 132 S. Ct. at 1245.

Rustin v. District of Columbia

491 A.2d 496 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1985

barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. 7 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is well-settled in the District of Columbia. … They are decisions “for which there is no reason to believe a jury would render a sounder decision than those officials chosen, qualified, and prepared to make them.” Chandler v.

Morgan v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

304 F. Supp. 3d 240 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

Morgan has not identified any other applicable waiver of the sovereign immunity bar, and thus he has clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims for monetary … Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800 , 819, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity protects only those officials who have acted in an objectively reasonable manner).

Castagna v. Edwards

361 F. Supp. 3d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2019

For qualified immunity to apply, the court must explore "whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right" and "whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at … Mass. 2018) (rejecting the officers' qualified immunity argument).

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd. v. Republic of Nauru

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2013

Generally, with regard to express waivers under this provision, “[a] foreign sovereign will not be found to have waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. … Similarly, in this case, Nauru  - 8 - issuing bonds qualifies as a commercial activity.

Townsend v. Carmel

494 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 1980

Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 175-176 (D.C.Cir.1977) the officers would be protected by a qualified immunity, and (4) therefore, the government is relieved from liability. … It is interesting to note that the qualified immunity defense available to federal officials stems from the government’s sovereign immunity defense. See Butz v.

Fuller-Avent v. United States Probation Office

226 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity where their conduct has not violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A court undertaking the qualified immunity inquiry first determines “whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right.” Wilson v.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

85 F. Supp. 3d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2015

As a result, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the RICO and Hobbs Act claims. Id. … Rather, the Court found that Defendants were “entitled to qualified immunity on the RICO and Hobbs Act claims because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants’ imposition of a Reimbursable Detail violated clearly

Ollar v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2022

“To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show both (1) that an official ‘violated a constitutional right’ and (2) that ‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” … Without showing any constitutional violation at all, Plaintiffs a fortiori cannot show the violation of any “clearly established” right. See Johnson, 734 F.3d at 1201–02.

Walker v. Femino

311 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2018

Even when an individual's rights have been violated, a police officer may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for certain damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Chun-Yu Zhao v. Holder

890 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2012

All three defendants, acting in their respective official capacities, enjoy qualified immunity against “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiff argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity in light of their “failure to simply investigate her scientifically substantiated claim of misconduct.” Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’

Davis v. Sarles

134 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2015

Moreover, even if plaintiffs had more clearly stated their case, they face the additional hurdle of the absolute and qualified immunity that prosecutors enjoy. See Atherton v. D.C. … Lieber, 579 F.Supp.2d 175, 179-80 (D.D.C.2008) (discussing prosecutors' qualified immunity from suits relating to their investigative and administrative activities). 7 .

Logiurato v. Action

490 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 1980

Qualified Immunity Liability attaches to the Defendants in the instant case because of the nexus between Defendants’ actions and government control. … The existence of that nexus, however, also provides the Defendants with a qualified immunity from suit. As the Supreme Court stated in Butz v.