This case concerns McKesson Corporation's claims against Iran for the 1982 expropriation of its 31% equity interest in the Iranian dairy company Pak Dairy and for the withholding of declared dividends from 1981 and 1982. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability, holding Iran accountable under the Treaty of Amity and customary international law. Following a bench trial focused on damages, at which fact witnesses and appraisal experts for both sides testified regarding Pak Dairy's condition, expansions, and the value of McKesson's interest and dividends, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), noting that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the amount of damages.
The case involved Nu-Med, the former owner of Lake Medical Center, challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' calculation of Medicare reimbursement for a loss on the 1988 resale of the hospital for $14.4 million after purchasing it for about $40 million. Under Medicare rules, providers can claim depreciation on assets used for beneficiaries, with adjustments for gains or losses upon sale, but subject to limits from the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act (DEFRA) capping historical cost at the July 1984 owner's purchase price. The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, holding that the agency correctly applied the DEFRA limit to determine the depreciable basis and net book value for the loss calculation, and properly allocated the lump-sum sale price to individual assets based on fair market value without treating assets as split into DEFRA-limited and non-limited portions.
This case involves a former employee, Hung Van Dang, suing his employer, Inn at Foggy Bottom, and a supervisor for racial discrimination under federal and D.C. law, claiming he was fired because he is Vietnamese and Asian. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The decision rests on the existence of genuine issues of material fact, including conflicting evidence about performance warnings, an alleged coffee spill incident, and the supervisor's alleged hostile behavior and comments about speaking Vietnamese, which could support a claim of discrimination either directly or through the McDonnell Douglas circumstantial evidence framework.
In Beeck v. Federal Express Corp., plaintiff Ronald Beeck, a long-time FedEx employee, sued the company alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his demotion from Senior Manager at Dulles Airport and subsequent transfers to distant locations, claiming these actions were pretextual following his refusal to make promotions without posting the positions as required by company policy. He also asserted a retaliation claim, though it was not included in the original complaint, and later withdrew his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. It found that the record did not support an allegation of prohibited age-based discriminatory motive under the ADEA, as the demotion and transfers were tied to performance issues documented in reminder letters. The court further held that the retaliation claim failed on the merits because the plaintiff's silent refusal to resign did not constitute protected opposition to an unlawful practice under the statute.
The case involved plaintiff John R. Cothran, a former Marine staff sergeant, seeking federal collateral review of his 1992 summary court-martial conviction for failing to report recruit abuse to a company officer in violation of a general order. Cothran alleged due process violations during the court-martial and subsequent military review processes and requested declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the conviction and expunge related records, relying on federal question jurisdiction, mandamus, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the APA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, and dismissed the action. The core reasoning was that collateral review of military court-martial convictions is narrowly limited, and Cothran failed to show that the proceedings were arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful under the applicable standards.
The case involved a custodial cleaner employed in the Senate Restaurants under the Architect of the Capitol who was terminated in 1997 after a series of disciplinary actions for performance and conduct issues. The plaintiff sued the Architect and other employees, alleging that the termination violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, the agency's personnel manual, and incorporated federal civil service procedures, while also claiming tortious interference with his employment under D.C. law. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to substitute the United States as defendant on the tort claim under the FTCA and granted the motion to dismiss both the due process and tort claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked a protected property interest enforceable through the cited statutes and manual provisions, that any procedural deviations were harmless or did not violate constitutional standards, and that the tort claim was either preempted or subject to sovereign immunity after substitution.