Aba, Inc. v. District of Columbia

40 F. Supp. 3d 153 | District Court, District of Columbia | 2014

voidedCited 1 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

The court denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, as they did not present sufficient evidence that DHCF intended to terminate them from the Medicaid program rather than temporarily suspend payments.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

District Court, District of Columbia, 2014

Related Cases

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

2002modified

An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.

2010enforced

A supplier cannot enforce a payment obligation against a project owner based on a letter offering optional direct payment arrangements, where the supplier's own deposition testimony demonstrates it never understood the letter as a binding contract.

Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.

1993remanded

Texas Constitution's usury provision applies only to lending transactions, not to judicially-awarded prejudgment interest, which derives from court order rather than commercial agreement.

El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P. F/K/A El Paso South Texas, L.P. v. Mastec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc.

2012enforced

Contract clearly allocated all risk of undiscovered foreign pipeline crossings to contractor despite owner's due diligence obligation, as contractor assumed full responsibility for site conditions notwithstanding any owner representations.