Source: http://legaliq.com/Court/District_Court_For_The_District_Of_Columbia
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 03:44:36
Document Index: 547722535

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 14141', '§ 2000', '§ 552', '§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 1346', '§ 2000', '§ 630', '§ 2000', '§ 1407', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 621', '§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1983']

District Court for the District of Columbia Court Cases and Information
District Court for the District of Columbia Court Cases
Searching: District Court for the District of Columbia	Search In:
Judge:	Date Filed (YYYY-MM-DD):	To	GRAND LODGE OF FRAT. ORDER OF POLICE v. Ashcroft (2001)
This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The plaintiff, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police ("Grand Lodge"), seeks a declaratory judgment stating that Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, is unconstitutional as enforced because it interferes with the rights of local and state [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 01-90(RMU)	Jarrell v. Tisch (1987)
Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against his employer, the United States Postal Service, and several other named defendants, alleging inter alia, that they wrongfully maintained certain records about him. This Court and the appellate court on appeal have characterized the complaint as alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1982) and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1982). Whether or not the complaint is limited to [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civ. A. No. 83-2939	Defenders of Wildlife v. US Border Patrol (2009)
This Freedom of Information Act case is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and on plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.[1] After careful consideration of the parties' papers and the attached exhibits and declarations, the Court concludes that the Vaughn Index submitted by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and accompanying declarations are inadequate for the Court to resolve either party's motion on the merits. It [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 04-1832 (PLF)	Hopkins v. WOMEN'S DIv., GEN. BD. OF GLOBAL MINIS. (2003)
This matter comes before the Court upon the defendants' motion for summary judgment, following the issuance of the Court's December 12, 2002, Memorandum Opinion dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims,[1] except for her race discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Hopkins v. Women's Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 238 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.D.C.2002) (Walton, J.). The plaintiff, a Native American of the Cahuilla [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV.A. 00-1064(RBW)	Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao (2002)
This matter comes before the Court upon defendants' first and second motions for partial dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2401-2680 (2000), and violations of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 630(f) (2000). The defendants seek dismissal [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civ.A. 01-0781(RBW)	Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1983)
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' application for an award of over $5 million in reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The application is the most recent  although certainly not the final  stage of this protracted Title VII and Equal Pay Act litigation. The action has been an extraordinary undertaking in many respects, consuming thirteen years and thousands of personnel hours and raising numerous issues under both statutes. It was virtually inevitable [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civ. A. No. 2111-70	In Re Umwa Employee Ben. Plans Litigation (1994)
Nineteen defendants[1] in five of the cases, which have been transferred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for multidistrict proceedings, have filed motions to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or motions for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c), on the ground that plaintiffs' claims as alleged are barred by the applicable limitations period. The issue presently before the Court is whether the transferor fora statutes of [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Misc. No. 91-386	Scolaro v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections and Ethics (2000)
This case arises from events surrounding the 1996 election of Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners ("ANC Commissioners") in Georgetown, a neighborhood in the District of Columbia. Presently before the court are the following motions: defendants District of Columbia's ("District") and District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics' ("Board") combined motion to dismiss; intervenors' motion to dismiss; plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; and plaintiff Westy Byrd's motion to reconsider this [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV. A. 96-02643 (HHK)	Buggs v. Powell (2003)
This matter comes before the Court upon the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Charles T. Buggs, was hired by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") in 1980 and was employed as a Management Analyst in the FDIC's Corporate Support Branch. Complaint ("Compl.") ¶ 4. The plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. × 2000e, et seq., as a result of the FDIC's [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 01-0721 (RBW)	Shekoyan v. Sibley Intern. Corp. (2002)
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Sibley International Corporation's ("Sibley") Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint that alleges (1) discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq. (2000); (2) discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Presidential Executive Order ("E.O.") 11,246, Exec. Order No. 11,246, 30 Fed.Reg. 12,319 (Sept. 24, 1965); (3) retaliatory [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 00-2519(RBW)	Lester v. Natsios (2003)
In this action against defendant Andrew Natsios, Administrator, United States Agency for International Development (hereinafter "defendant" or "AID"), plaintiff Mary T. Lester ("plaintiff") asserts an exceptionally broad array of discrimination claims relating to her lengthy employment at AID. She includes claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV.A.01-0233 JDB	Moore v. Aspin (1996)
This matter comes before the Court on defendant United States Department of Defense's motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff Robert W. Moore, who appears before this Court pro se, opposes the Department of Defense's motion.	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 93-1797	Bigwood v. US Agency for Intern. Development (2007)
This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment.[1] On March 30, 2007, the Court entered an Order and Judgment granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. This Opinion explains the reasoning underlying that Order.	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 06-0635 (PLF)	Hopkins v. WOMEN'S DIv., GEN. BD. OF GLOBAL MIN. (2002)
This matter comes before the Court upon defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (2000) ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) ("Section 1981"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) (2000) ("Section 1981(a)"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) ("Section 1983") and alleges: (1) employment discrimination based on [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV.A. 00-1064(RBW)	Fund for Animals v. Babbitt (1995)
Since the arrival of Europeans in North America, the grizzly bear has been eliminated from all but approximately two percent of its original range in the lower 48 states. Indeed, the bear's historic range, which once included most of the western half of the United States, has receded to small portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan ("Plan") at ix, 9-10, Administrative Record ("A.R.") Volume 7. Between 1800 and 1975, the grizzly bear population shrank from [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: 94-1021, 94-1106	Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus (2001)
Pending before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the Judgment of Dismissal and For Leave to Amend her Complaint ("Motion to Reconsider"), defendant's Motion to Strike plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, and plaintiff's Request for an Oral Hearing on these motions. Upon consideration of plaintiff's and defendant's Motions, the oppositions and replies, and the entire record herein, the Court will deny defendant's Motion to Strike and will deny plaintiff's Request for an Oral [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV. 00-2495(TFH)	United States v. Philip Morris Inc. (2000)
Timothy M. Broas, Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC, Fred W. Reinke, Clifford, Chance, Rogers & Wells, Washington, DC, Michael A. Schlanger, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Washington, DC, for defendants.	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV.A.99-2496 GK	Arbitraje Casa De Cambio, SA De CV v. USPS (2003)
Many families in Mexico are dependent upon monies sent to them by family members working in the United States. Sophisticated banking arrangements are not available in smaller villages in Mexico. Family members in the United States, therefore, purchase money orders from the United States Postal Service ("USPS" or "Postal Service") and send them home, where they are signed by the recipient and treated almost as cash in U.S. dollars. This lawsuit is brought by ten Mexican foreign currency exchange [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: CIV.A.02-0777(RMC)	Adkins v. Teseo (2001)
This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs' motion to enter default judgment and tax costs against the defendants. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek default judgment in the form of the confirmation of an arbitration award entered by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD"). For the reasons stated below, the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment and will confirm and enter judgment on the arbitration award made In the Matter of [...]	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civ.A.01-138(RMU)	Williams v. Callaghan (1996)
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action against his former criminal defense trial attorney, alleging that certain of defendant's trial tactics caused plaintiff's conviction for drug distribution. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: (1) legal malpractice; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's allegations are supported solely by plaintiff's own affidavit. Defendant moves for summary judgment.	Court: District Court for the District of Columbia	Docket: Civil Action No. 95-02335	1 of 1327 Page(s) Page: