Lilly v. Schwartz
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
The plaintiff is challenging his removal from the United States Army’s Active Guard and Reserve. He seeks to be reinstated to full active duty. This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and on plaintiff’s motion for a declaratory judgment. After careful consideration of the parties’ papers, attached exhibits, and the relevant case law, statutes and regulations, the Court will grant defendant’s motion and will deny plaintiffs motion.
I. BACKGROUND
At all times relevant to this lawsuit,…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Clayton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Calixto v. United States Department of the ArmyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. RoeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. RoeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019