Gladys Kessler

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

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.

free speechfederal powerprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a pro se plaintiff's FOIA requests to the FBI for records concerning its 1991-1992 investigation and prosecution of a conspiracy to kidnap Lewis duPont Smith, as well as related wiretaps and involvement by other entities. The FBI processed the requests, released some documents, and withheld others under FOIA Exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(D), while referring certain materials to other DOJ components. The court granted in part and denied in part the FBI's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and supplemental Vaughn indices, finding the sample Vaughn Index adequate to justify the withholdings after the agency conducted a re-review and made clarifications. The court also denied as moot the plaintiff's separate motion seeking further discretionary releases.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves payday lending companies suing the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC, alleging that the agencies' participation in Operation Choke Point pressured banks to end business relationships with them, violating due process rights. Earlier rulings had dismissed APA claims and one organizational plaintiff for lack of standing. The court addressed motions to dismiss new individual plaintiffs and for summary judgment on the remaining due process claims against Advance America. It granted dismissal only for PH Financial Services but denied the motions as to the other plaintiffs and denied summary judgment, reasoning that plaintiffs could potentially show a protected liberty or property interest if the agencies' actions broadly precluded their payday lending operations, even if other business lines remained available.

business & regulatorycivil rights

This case involves the enforcement of corrective statements that major cigarette manufacturers must disseminate about the health effects of smoking, nicotine addiction, low-tar cigarettes, cigarette design, and secondhand smoke, following a 2006 RICO liability ruling against the defendants for conspiring to mislead the public. After multiple appeals, the district court on remand adopted revised preambles stating that 'A federal court has ordered [Defendants] to make this statement about [topic]' and approved specific topic descriptions and bullet-point content for five statements to eliminate any implication of prior misconduct. The court applied Zauderer as the governing First Amendment standard, as previously decided, finding the requirements reasonably related to correcting consumer deception and not unduly burdensome. The modifications to statements on low-tar cigarettes and other topics were selected from options provided by the Court of Appeals to ensure compliance with RICO remedies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfree speech

This case involves pro se plaintiff George Canning's multiple FOIA requests to the FBI seeking documents related to specific serial numbers, individuals including Paul Goldstein, Lyndon LaRouche, and Jeffrey Steinberg, declassified materials from ISCAP appeals, and suspected government surveillance of LaRouche's presidential campaign. The district court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that the FBI's searches were adequate in most respects and that certain exemptions were properly invoked, but it ordered disclosure of names and identifying information about two individuals (Lewis and Howard) as well as Boston ELSUR documents because those materials had already been officially released to the public or in response to another requester's FOIA request, placing them in the public domain.

procedurefederal power

Lori McDowell brought a class action against CGI Federal Inc. alleging that the company failed to safeguard her personal information, which was collected while processing passport applications under a contract with the State Department and was stolen by CGI employees, leading to identity theft and related harms. She asserted claims for violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, negligence, breach of contract, breach of bailment, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted CGI's motion to dismiss all counts except the breach of contract claim (as a third-party beneficiary), concluding that the dismissed claims failed to adequately allege the required elements, such as a conferred benefit for unjust enrichment or other necessary facts.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Seavey v. Department of Justice, a documentary filmmaker and history professor filed a FOIA request with the FBI for records on its surveillance and activities involving the anti-war movement in St. Louis during the 1960s and 1970s, seeking news media status and a waiver of duplication fees. The FBI granted news media status (waiving search fees) but denied the fee waiver, leading the plaintiff to challenge that denial after an administrative appeal went unanswered. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and denied the government's motion, ruling that the request satisfied the statutory criteria under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and DOJ regulations because it concerned identifiable federal government operations, was not primarily commercial, and was likely to significantly contribute to public understanding of government activities through the plaintiff's planned documentary and academic work. The court rejected arguments that existing public information or repetitive records justified denial, emphasizing that fee waivers further FOIA's goal of public access to government information.

procedurefree speech

This case involves Michael Monzel's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 2010 federal conviction for distribution and possession of child pornography, to which he had pled guilty. Monzel claimed the district court lacked authority to enter the conviction and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and he sought an emergency hearing along with various discovery-related motions. The court denied the petition, the hearing request, and all related motions without an evidentiary hearing. It reasoned that the claims were vague, conclusory, or unsupported by evidence; Monzel failed to show prejudice from any alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance; and the record demonstrated that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, with no indication he would have proceeded to trial otherwise.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by plaintiff George Canning against the U.S. Department of Justice seeking records from the FBI. After the parties completed briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed three additional motions: a third motion for discovery, a motion to submit a supplement to his reply brief, and a motion for limited in camera review of certain withheld documents. The court denied all three motions. It reasoned that discovery is rarely permitted in FOIA cases and the requested information was either irrelevant, already addressed, or previously denied; that the plaintiff had not shown new issues raised by the defendant to justify a surreply; and that the agency's detailed affidavits were sufficient to support the withholdings under FOIA exemptions without evidence of bad faith, making in camera review unnecessary.

procedure

The case involved payday lending industry plaintiffs suing the FDIC and other federal banking agencies, alleging that the agencies' participation in 'Operation Choke Point' unlawfully pressured banks to end relationships with payday lenders, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and due process rights. Earlier rulings had dismissed all APA claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed one plaintiff (CFSA) for lack of standing to assert due process claims on behalf of members. The court addressed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to certify those dismissal orders as final judgments for immediate appeal. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the orders were final as to certain claims but that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify piecemeal appeals, given the risk of multiple appeals from the same case, overlapping facts with remaining claims, and pending motions that could soon resolve the entire action.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

In this case, federal inmate Jason Todd Reynolds filed a petition under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 60(d) seeking to vacate the court's February 2015 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which had challenged his 2011 felony convictions on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Reynolds alleged that Bureau of Prisons officials fabricated chickenpox test results to bar his in-person attendance at the evidentiary hearing and later disconnected his video feed, thereby committing fraud on the court and violating his Fifth Amendment due process rights; he also raised related claims of constitutional violations by a BOP official, falsified prison records affecting his confinement, and an improper FOIA response by the Department of Justice. The district court denied the petition in full. It reasoned that Reynolds had consented to video participation for his testimony, that counsel had agreed to proceed without him for the remainder of the hearing, and that no fraud or due process violation occurred. The court further held that the prison-records claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that it lacked jurisdiction over the FOIA claim, which was already pending before another judge.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a petition to enforce an International Chamber of Commerce arbitral award in favor of Leidos (formerly Science Applications International Corporation) against the Hellenic Republic, following a Greek Supreme Court decision upholding the award. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had previously confirmed the award but the clerk's judgment omitted certain relief, including conversion of the award to U.S. dollars, post-award pre-judgment interest at 6%, the $162,500 award of arbitral fees, and post-judgment interest. Leidos moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a) to correct the judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the corrections were necessary to prevent manifest injustice under Rule 59(e) and that Leidos had not waived the requested relief, relying on D.C. Circuit precedent permitting such adjustments even if not explicitly demanded earlier, pursuant to Rule 54(c).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its leaders challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's rejection of their proposed advertisements after WMATA implemented a policy banning all issue-oriented ads on its property. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on their speech under the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of WMATA, finding that the advertising space was a non-public forum where the restriction was reasonable, viewpoint-neutral, and included sufficiently definite standards to avoid vagueness concerns.

free speechcivil rights

Plaintiff Joseph Majid, an American citizen of Afghan descent, sued his former co-worker, the FBI, and two unnamed FBI agents, alleging that false reports labeling him a security risk triggered an FBI investigation involving surveillance and employer notifications, resulting in job losses and harm to his security clearance. He brought claims under the U.S. Constitution (due process), the Privacy Act for maintaining inaccurate records, and various California statutes and common law torts. The district court addressed the FBI's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissing the constitutional claims and certain state law claims against the FBI while denying dismissal of the Privacy Act claims against the FBI and allowing claims against the other defendants to proceed, reasoning that the Privacy Act provided a viable cause of action and that supplemental jurisdiction existed over remaining claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Dayshawn Ingram suing four police officers and the District of Columbia after his father Anthony Chambers died during a violent encounter in which Officer Shipman-Meyer allegedly used a chokehold. The plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, assault and battery, excessive force under the Constitution, wrongful death, and negligent failure to train. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety and granted the defendants' cross-motion in part, dismissing the negligence claim based on a national standard of care and the aiding-and-abetting assault claims against three officers, while denying summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court reasoned that genuine disputes of material fact existed on issues including the officers' conduct, causation, and compliance with the Chokehold Act, and that some claims were not properly pleaded.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability