In this case, Eagle Pharmaceuticals sued the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration after the agencies denied Eagle a seven-year period of orphan drug exclusivity for its cancer treatment Bendeka. Apotex, which had filed an abbreviated new drug application for a generic version of Bendeka, moved to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests in marketing the generic product. The district court granted Apotex's motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The court found the motion timely because Apotex filed it promptly after its application was accepted, that Apotex had a cognizable interest that could be impaired if Eagle prevailed, and that the federal defendants could not adequately represent Apotex's distinct financial interests.
The case involved a defendant, Albert Abunaw Tabi, who was convicted in 1998 by a jury of making false statements in his passport application and sentenced to three years of probation. In 2006, Tabi filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court denied the motion, finding it untimely under the one-year statute of limitations that expired in 2000, with no applicable exceptions, equitable tolling, or showing of actual innocence, and further noting that Tabi was no longer in custody as required by the statute.
This case concerns a challenge by environmental plaintiffs to federal fishery management actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, specifically regarding Amendments 4 and 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan and the failure to designate river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery. Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint adding the New England Fishery Management Council and its executive director as defendants. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion. The court reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 favors granting leave to amend when justice requires, and that allowing the amendment at this stage would enable full development of the threshold issue of whether the Council qualifies as an agency subject to the APA through later dispositive motions rather than denying the amendment outright.
The case involves plaintiff Ray Bernard Williams suing two Metropolitan Police Department officers and the District of Columbia after his arrest at a liquor store on February 22, 2014. Williams alleged that officers used excessive force during the arrest, resulting in significant head and face injuries, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and various District of Columbia laws including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion as to the excessive force, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Officer Bines and the District, finding that security video footage created genuine issues of material fact for a jury regarding the sequence of events and the officers' actions, but granted summary judgment on all remaining claims.
Professor Nina Gilden Seavey, a documentary filmmaker and academic, filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking records on its role in the anti-Vietnam War movement in St. Louis during the 1960s and 1970s. After the FBI failed to process the large request in a timely manner, she sued the Department of Justice. The court granted her motion for partial summary judgment, ordering the FBI to process the remaining approximately 102,000 pages at a rate of at least 2,850 pages per month. The court reasoned that the FBI's proposed rate of 500 pages per month would result in an unreasonably long delay of over 17 years, contrary to FOIA's goals and the agency's own processing objectives.
Rosa Arias sued Marriott International, Inc., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that she suffered health issues from workplace exposure to hazardous chemicals without protective equipment, was retaliated against under Title VII after giving deposition testimony in a related case, and that her termination violated contract and good faith obligations. After some claims were dismissed, three survived: Title VII retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denied without prejudice Arias's motion for class certification. The decision rested on the determination that her counsel required substantial additional assistance to handle the complex class action issues, leading the court to seek involvement from another firm before the judge's retirement.
