A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

Although defendant argues that “good cause is met by the need for an informed and reasoned decision” (Def.’s Reply at 2), the Court’s good cause inquiry must focus on defendant’s reason for the delay, not the anticipated results of granting the motion. See Lurie, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 23. Here, defendant has not shown that it acted diligently; thus, the Court’s inquiry must end, regardless of whether the amendment will assist the factfinder or result in prejudice to the plaintiff.

Non-Final Decision

A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA

September 30th, 2014

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

But the Court cannot grant summary judgment for either party on the statutory and common law misrepresentation claims that are premised on Maoz’s allegedly false representations about start-up cost expenses, because there are genuine issues of fact regarding such material matters as whether Maoz knew its cost estimates were false, whether ALOF was entitled to rely on those estimates, and—with respect to the common law fraud claim only—whether Maoz intended to defraud ALOF.

this Court rejects Plaintiffs’ myriad assertions regarding the agency’s alleged production of deficient regional wage indices after the Secretary’s rule change in 2005, and it also concludes that the application of the wage indices that the agency used to generate Plaintiffs’ PPS payments between 2007 and 2011 did not have an impermissibly retroactive effect.

As the Tenth Circuit has observed, "Abiodun has used every tool possible to remain in the United States, and this lawsuit is yet another example." Abiodun v. Mukasey, 264 Fed.Appx. 726, 730 (10th Cir.2008). Because Abiodun brings here the same claims that he has already litigated and lost numerous times before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and because he has obviously done so in an attempt to evade the pre-filing injunction that court issued, this Court finds that the instant action is frivolous and malicious

In 1988, Adamski applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR” or “the Board”) seeking to have his separation status changed from “voluntary” to “disability” in order to reflect what Adamski alleges is the real reason that his military service came to an end: previously undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).

Non-Final Decision

Company/Organization

This Court concludes that, because Alford could have brought the instant ADA claims in her prior lawsuit, the doctrine of res judicata precludes her from bringing them now

the Court agrees with Defendants’ justiciability argument, and has therefore concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Alibalogun v. First Coast Security Solutions, Inc

Company/Organization

Because the Court finds that Alibalogun has failed to allege sufficiently any contractual obligation on the part of First Coast and that the allegations of the complaint do not support an exception to First Coast’s general right to terminate at-will employees, this Court will GRANT First Coast's motion to dismiss with respect to the breach of contract and wrongful termination claims

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-002054 (UNA)

Constitutional Violations

Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies v. General Motors

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

Interpretation (non-constitutional)

the application of the AHRA in this context is a complicated, fact-bound endeavor and, thus, must await discovery. In this Court's considered judgment, the best course of action is not to attempt to answer the intricate issue of whether hard drive partitions satisfy the Court's understanding of the requirements of DACRs in the abstract, but to do so in the context of the specific devices at issue in this case, and the Court will have the benefit of a full record and more comprehensive briefing to address this highly technical question at the summary judgment stage.

Non-Final Decision

State Representative

This Court concludes that neither of Defendant’s arguments for dismissal is well-taken, given that suits against public officers in their official capacity are deemed suits against the public entity itself, and Alma has not actually brought any claim under Section 1981.

Non-Final Decision

Alvarez v. Keystone Plus Construction Corporation

Company/Organization

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the proposed class meets the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), and the proposed settlement— including the provisions for attorney’s fees—is fair, reasonable, and adequate

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump

As a result, and as set forth in the accompanying Order, this Court will declare the following provisions invalid, and will enjoin the President’s subordinates from implementing or giving effect to: Executive Order 13,836 §§ 5(a), 5(e), 6; Executive Order 13,837 §§ 3(a), 4(a), 4(b); and Executive Order 13,839 §§ 3, 4(a), 4(c). What remains—Executive Order 13,836 § 5(c); Executive Order 13,837 §§ 2(j), 4(c); and Executive Order 13,839 §§ 2(b), 2(c), 4(b)(iii), 7—are the few challenged directives that have neither reduced the scope of protected collective bargaining rights n or hampered good faith bargaining, and, thus, cannot be said to conflict with the FSLMRS.

Non-Final Decision

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Vilsack

Dept of Agriculture

it is well established that because the regulation at issue here is a rule that pertains to third-party conduct and does not govern Plaintiffs directly, Plaintiffs must provide proof of the causation and redressability aspects of the standing requirement even at this early stage of the litigation.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. National Labor Relations Board

NLRB “has a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining represe ntatives by employees[,]” Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 206 F.3d 1175, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and the NLRA does not appear to address whether an election-related action that an agent of the Board is slated to take may be prospectively stayed, through rulemaking by the NLRB or in any other fashion. Therefore, this Court cannot find that the NLRB’s exercise of its authority to promulgate the impoundment rule contravenes section 153(b)’s stay prohibition, or is an otherwise unreasonable interpretation of that statutory provision

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. National Labor Relations Board

this Court has concluded that the challenged portions of the 2019 Election Rule are not procedural rules that are exempt from that rulemaking requirement, and thus those provisions must be held unlawful and set aside.

Non-Final Decision

American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture

Company/Organization

Dept of Agriculture

like the likelihood of success and irreparable harm factors, the public interest factor weighs against granting an injunction in the instant case

Non-Final Decision

Amin-Bey v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office

Company/Organization

This Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions in this case, and for the reasons discussed fully below, it concludes that Amobi’s malicious prosecution of administrative removal claim must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the CMPA’s exclusive remedial framework.

Non-Final Decision

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that the ALJ’s findings regarding Amos’s residual functional capacity were not supported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ failed to address the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Rating Decision (“VA Rating Decision”) when assessing Amos’s physical and mental ability to perform work.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against the District of Columbia to recover $9,020.98 in attorneys’ fees and costs that they incurred in connection with administrative proceedings conducted pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Complaint (Document No. 1).

Company/Organization

Court agrees with Apton that Defendants have not carried their burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, but agrees with Defendants that Apton is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or any other costs or expenses.

Aqualliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation

Company/Organization

Bureau of Reclamation

The plain text of Exemption 9 permits the Bureau to withhold information regarding the construction, location, and depth of water wells. However, Exemption 6 does not justify the Bureau’s redaction of the names and addresses of various participants in water transfer programs, participants in real water valuations, and well owners because AquAlliance has demonstrated that the public’s interest in the disclosure of this information outweighs the privacy interest at stake.

ASS'N FOR ADVANCEMENT OF MULTIJURIS. v. Roberts

Company/Organization

Interpretation (non-constitutional)

The Court finds that the "local supervision" justification forms a plausible and rational basis for the "principal law office" provision in Rule 83.8(a)(2). Plaintiffs fail to negate or even address that justification. Their arguments focus instead on identifying a set of attorneys who are not subject to the challenged provision and on presenting examples of invalid rules enacted by other jurisdictions in other contexts. Those efforts fall well short of satisfying plaintiffs' burden of negating the rational basis underlying the imposition of that requirement on another set of attorneys.

Company/Organization

this Court finds that the complaint’s allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendants’ practices regarding user data violate the AARP’s internet Privacy Policy, and in any event, it is entirely implausible that Austin-Spearman has suffered the injury she relies upon for standing (an economic injury) as a result of the AARP’s purported violation of its internet-usage Privacy Policy. Therefore, the Court concludes that Austin-Spearman does not have Article III standing to sue

Azadeh v. the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Because Azadeh has successfully effected service upon Defendants in accordance with section 1608(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, this Court now has the personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to consider both the merits of Azadeh’s claims and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations

Azadeh v. the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Azadeh’s service upon Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard was defective, and this Court cannot yet exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b)

Company/Organization

This Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, because Azima has alleged that RAKIA engaged in foreign commercial activities in connection with an act that had a direct effect within the United States , such that this matter falls within the commercial activity exception to the FSIA. And because RAKIA has failed to demonstrate that the United Kingdom is an adequate and available forum to litigate Azima’s claims

Non-Final Decision

Company/Organization

Court’s view, there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the controlling issues of law that RAKIA has identified with respect to forum non conveniens or this Court’s ultimate conclusion that the complaint should not be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, which means that the legal standard for certifying the March 30, 2018 Order for interlocutory appeal has not been met.

Non-Final Decision

Badwal v. BD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF DC

These assumptions—that Dr. Badwal's status as a full professor, with 42 years of employment with the University, indicates that he had tenure, and that as a tenured professor he could only be fired for cause—may, of course, prove to be wrong. For purposes of reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion, however, the Court finds its plausible that plaintiff has a claim against the University for breach of contract. Therefore, the Court recommends that defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, as found in Count Six of the Complaint, be denied

Non-Final Decision

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02059 (UNA)

Court agrees with the government that, given the factual allegations contained in Baisden’s complaint, Baisden has yet to allege any cognizable, non-speculative injury that is capable of supporting Article III standing.

this Court need not decide whether the most appropriate vehicle for the dismissal of Baloun’s complaint is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Alipio, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 29 (concluding that “an alien to whom Title VII does not apply” has “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”),

Court will dismiss all of the counts that pertain to constitutional and tort claims, but will permit the counts that relate to employment discrimination and retaliation to proceed.

Non-Final Decision

Civil Action No. 17-2627 (UNA)

Bennett v. United States Parole Commission

Civil Action No. 13-1809 (KBJ)

Petitioner has neither replied to Respondent's opposition nor sought additional time to do so. Based on Respondent's documented opposition, the Court finds no grounds for issuing the writ and, therefore, will deny the petition and dismiss the case

Beshir fails to demonstrate how such action, even it true, gives rise to an inference of discrimination in this case. Nothing in the record comes close to establishing that age was a relevant consideration in Defendant’s employment actions regarding Beshir, and absent any connection between Beshir’s age and Defendant’s actions, Beshir is unable to demonstrate that she suffered age discrimination in violation of the ADEA

Company/Organization

Betz has failed to show that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Aidnest, and given the lack of any objection to Magistrate Judge Harvey’s R&R, this appears to be a conclusion with which Betz himself agrees. As a result, the instant case 5 fares no better than Betz’s other unsuccessful attempts to bring TCPA claims against out-of-state-defendant

finds that Southcom's search for responsive records was adequate (id. at 15-25); that it appropriately invoked FOIA Exemptions 1 and 7(E) to withhold responsive material (id. at 25-30); and that it produced all reasonably segregable non-exempt information (id. at 30-33)

Court finds that Oltchick’s version of the relevant events—which is entirely consistent with the existing documentary evidence—is by far more credible. Consequently, as explained below and as set forth in the accompanying order, Brink’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement will be GRANTED

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

In sum, the declarations and materials attached thereto—which are appropriately considered in order to calculate the damages amount in a case in which default judgment is entered, see Permanent Solution Indus., 257 F.R.D. at 7; Amrine Drywall, 239 F. Supp. 2d at 30—establish that the Funds have compensable damages and costs in the total amount of $19,926.87

Dept Veteran Affairs

The instant claims are entirely duplicative of those that Plaintiff asserts in case number 15-cv-0231

Civil Action No. 20-3167 (UNA)

Civil Action No. 20-3104 (UNA)

Branch v. Attorney General of the United States

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00971

Civil Action No. 13-cv-2005 (KBJ)

Civil Action No. 14-1939 (UNA)

Court will grant the Postmaster General's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Brett's discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, but it will deny her motion as to his retaliation claim

Non-Final Decision

Brewer’s complaint must be DISMISSED for two reasons: first, because the Superior Court’s judgment in the WTU lawsuit precludes Brewer from relitigating whether or not the 2009 DCPS employment action was, in fact, a RIF; and second, because Brewer chose to retire when the RIF announcement was made—that is, Brewer’s employment was not actually terminated pursuant to the 2009 RIF—and as a result, Brewer lacks standing

Today, however, this Court will provide the FBI with one additional opportunity to justify its withholdings fully; the agency must do so through submission of a supplemental declaration that addresses the concerns the Court has expressed in this Opinion and any others that the agency might identify as it undertakes to comply with the instant Order.

Non-Final Decision

Brightwell Dispensers Limited v. Dongguan Isce Sanitary Ware Industrial Co. Ltd.

Company/Organization

Company/Organization

Brooks v. GOODWILL OF GREATER WASHINGTON

Civil Action No. 14-0419 (KBJ)

Company/Organization

Court agrees with Goodwill that the instant suit has not been filed within the applicable statute of limitations

Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia

Constitutional Violations

the Court has concluded that the District’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments are not viable at the motion-to-dismiss stage of this case, insofar as they attack the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge rather than the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ complaint. The Court has also found that, when accepted as true, Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a plausible Section 1983 First Amendment claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Non-Final Decision

Brustein & Manasevit, Pllc v. United States Department of Education

Company/Organization

Dept of Education

the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint is not moot, and so declines to dismiss the complaint on those grounds. However, the Court also concludes that, because the agency’s search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s request was reasonable and adequate, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment

Company/Organization

this Court concludes that Buchanan has failed to state a claim for copyright infringement, because not all of the songs that he claims were infringed have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and he has not sufficiently alleged that Defendants had access to his registered works or that there are substantial similarities between protectable aspects of his registered works and most of the infringing songs in his complaint

Burnell v. Office of the Attorney General of the United States

concludes that Calderon-Lopez’s request for review of the SSA’s decision is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, because the District Court for the Northern District of California actually and necessarily determined that Calderon-Lopez had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies below, and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision as a consequence

California Clinical Laboratory Association v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services

Company/Organization

this Court concludes that Jane Doe has failed to allege a sufficient injury-in-fact to give rise to Article III standing, and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over CCLA’s remaining claims.

Campaign for Accountability v. U.S. Department of Justice

Company/Organization

this Court will stay the instant case to give OLC a chance to evaluate the agency’s position regarding the refined claims that CfA makes in the amended complaint, but CfA will not be required to submit to OLC a new FOIA request.

Non-Final Decision

Campfield v. Commissioner of Social Security

In particular, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determinations that none of Campfield’s impairments satisfy the requirements of the relevant Social Security regulatory listings (see R. & R. at 25–28); that Campfield’s residual functioning capacity permits her to perform light work (see id. at 28–33); that Campfield could return to her past work as a mail clerk (see id. at 34); and that Campfield could adjust to other work available in the national economy (see id. at 34– 36).

CAPITALKEYS, LLC v. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Company/Organization

Court agrees that the Central Bank has sovereign immunity, because neither of the identified statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity applies with respect to CapitalKeys's claims against the Central Bank. Moreover, and for that same reason, the Court likewise concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over CapitalKeys's claims against the Congo itself.

Civil Action No. 18-2333 (UNA)

Cause of Action Institute v. Internal Revenue Service

Company/Organization

Court is confident that the IRS’s not-agency-records challenge is one that pertains to the merits of CoA Institute’s FOIA claim, rather than this Court’s power to adjudicate the dispute and grant the requested relief, and the allegations of CoA Institute’s complaint are more than sufficient to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements that are applicable to the initial stage of FOIA litigation.

Non-Final Decision

Company/Organization

Court is persuaded that a temporary stay is in the interests of judicial economy and international comity, especially given the significant legal issues that underlie the parties' dispute, which arise from, and relate to, European Union law. Therefore, Italy's motion to stay the instant action will be GRANTED

Non-Final Decision

Company/Organization

Dept Homeland Security

Court concludes that Congress has unambiguously precluded all non-constitutional legal challenges to the exercise of the DHS Secretary's waiver authority, including ultra vires claims. Adding a belt to these suspenders, Congress has further removed this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over any non-constitutional waiver challenges; therefore, this Court is without power to address the merits of Plaintiffs' ultra vires contentions. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs' constitutional claims cannot proceed, based on the reasoning of a persuasive prior opinion from this district that addresses the constitutionality of the IIRIRA's section 102(c) waiver authority in substantially similar circumstances and holds that Congress has provided sufficient limitations to the agency's exercise of power to comport with the Constitution's separation-of-powers requirements

Company/Organization

What is more, it is clear to this Court that the agency-review obligation that section 1507.3(a) establishes does not qualify as the type of “discrete” agency action that a federal court can supervise consistent with the circumscribed judicial role that the APA contemplates.

Civil Action No. 19-2107 (UNA)

Charles v. Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner

Court finds that Defendants’ submissions sufficiently demonstrate that the preliminary autopsy reports do not contain reasonably segregable non-exempt information, and the Court is therefore persuaded that the preliminary autopsy reports may be withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5.

Company/Organization

Because Cho has failed to invoke arbitration at his first available opportunity and has repeatedly acted inconsistently with any right to arbitrate, he has forfeited any arbitration right he may once have possessed such that his request for arbitration at this juncture cannot be honored

Company/Organization

Clarian has sustained its contention that the qualifying criteria CMS issued to MACs in the 2010 manual, which were used to identify Clarian as a candidate for the outlier-payment reconciliation process, needed to be subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to their adoption.

Civil Action No. 18-1460 (UNA)

COAL RIVER MT. WATCH v. US DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR

Company/Organization

Coal River is mistaken to suggest that this Court must decide whether or not it has exclusive jurisdiction before considering the merits of the government's motion to dismiss, and when the merits of the government's motion are considered, the government is mistaken to conclude that the equities weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this case in deference to the pending action in West Virginia

Non-Final Decision