This case involved class action claims under the Truth in Lending Act alleging that the defendant failed to make timely disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1639(b). The court previously ruled for the plaintiffs and awarded $22,350.42 in statutory damages. Plaintiffs then petitioned for attorneys' fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3), including hourly rates, a contingency bonus, law clerk fees, and certain expert and deposition expenses that the clerk had disallowed. Defendant opposed any award, raising constitutional challenges to the one-way fee provision and arguing plaintiffs were not successful, while both sides addressed the twelve factors from Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel for determining reasonableness. The court analyzed precedents such as Boddie v. Connecticut and United States v. Kras to evaluate due process and equal protection claims, applied a rational basis standard, and considered the statutory purpose of encouraging compliance without excessive bureaucracy.
This case involved shareholders who sued a law firm for alleged malpractice, breach of contract, negligence, and fraud after the firm represented them in a 1971 proxy contest against Chris-Craft Industries management involving Richard Kelly; the claims centered on the firm's alleged failure to disclose Kelly's criminal record, insufficient-funds checks, and false claims about corporate assets and control. The court, after transfer from Pennsylvania state court and bifurcation of liability from damages, dismissed one claim for lack of evidence but addressed the others following a non-jury trial. It ruled that the firm had disclosed the relevant facts about Kelly at an October 1971 meeting, that no malpractice or breach occurred, and that the general releases signed by the plaintiffs were valid and binding. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs' claims, upheld the releases, and permitted the firm's counterclaims for contracted fees, expenses, and a note to proceed to a damages hearing.
This case involved a challenge by the Aviation Consumer Action Project to the Civil Aeronautics Board's policies on disclosing decisions made under 49 U.S.C. § 1461, which are subject to presidential approval. Following a prior court order requiring prompt public release after transmission to the President, the President issued Executive Order 11920 permitting a five-day delay for national security review, and the Board adopted a regulation allowing further delay until decisions are printed for mass distribution. The court upheld the five-day delay as permissible under 49 U.S.C. § 1504, finding it consistent with FOIA exemptions, but ruled that the Board's regulation violated FOIA by not making decisions promptly available to individual requesters. The court therefore granted in part the motion to compel compliance, enjoining delays beyond the time decisions can be made promptly available.
This case involves two journalists, Thomas Forcade and Robert Sherrill, suing Secret Service and White House officials after their applications for press passes to attend presidential briefings and conferences were denied on unspecified security grounds without notice of reasons, opportunity to respond, or identifiable standards. The plaintiffs argued that the denials violated their First Amendment right to gather news and Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights. The court ruled that while presidential security concerns are paramount, the Secret Service must promulgate clear, public standards for press accreditation decisions and afford affected journalists notice and an opportunity to be heard before denying access, remanding the matter for agency proceedings consistent with these requirements. The opinion rejected both outright dismissal and summary judgment for defendants, emphasizing that First Amendment protections extend to reasonable access for legitimate reporters and that constitutional due process applies even to security-based exclusions.
The case involved airline pilots suing their union ALPA and officers under the LMRDA, alleging that disciplinary proceedings against them for financial reporting violations were retaliatory for intra-union opposition and failed to provide a full and fair hearing. After initial court orders on hearing procedures, multiple appeals, and revised hearings that addressed notice and representation issues, the union's Hearing Board and Appeal Board found one plaintiff guilty on a charge of failing to report funds and imposed a fine. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the final proceedings complied with LMRDA requirements for written charges, notice, and an opportunity to respond, and that the disciplinary action was motivated by legitimate union financial obligations rather than prohibited retaliation.
This case involves an antitrust claim under the Sherman Act in which Frederick Cinema Corp. alleged that Interstate Theatres Corp., along with other defendants, conspired to restrict the licensing of first-run movies in Frederick, Maryland, to only certain theaters, thereby excluding the plaintiff from competition. The court addressed Interstate's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in the District of Columbia. The court denied the motion, holding that venue was proper under section 12 of the Clayton Act because Interstate transacted business of a substantial character in the District through its frequent communications and contract dealings with film distributors located there. The core reasoning was that these ongoing contacts, even if initiated from Interstate's Boston office and involving approvals elsewhere, met the practical, everyday business standard for transacting business, satisfying both venue and minimum contacts for jurisdiction.