John Garrett Penn

The United States sued Mary Levin in 2005 to recover funds paid for her medical school tuition under a National Health Service Corps scholarship contract, alleging breach when she failed to maintain academic standing and was dismissed from school in 1996. Levin moved for summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to government contract claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the government's right of action accrued three years after the breach (upon dismissal in June 1996), making the accrual date in 1999 and the 2005 filing timely under the limitations period. The decision turned on the regulatory definition of breach and the contract terms specifying when repayment becomes due.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Jerry Lewis Bey sued the Department of Justice under FOIA seeking FBI records from a St. Louis file on the Moorish Science Temple of America, including his own telephone toll records from 1985, as well as records about Doris Lewis Bey and Tonya Timmons. The FBI had released some redacted documents while withholding others under exemptions such as 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), and the plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the searches and withholdings. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the FBI's searches were reasonable and adequate under the circumstances, that the claimed exemptions properly protected the withheld information, and that all reasonably segregable non-exempt material had been released.

procedurefederal powercriminal law

This case involves pet owners suing the Washington Humane Society and the District of Columbia after their animals were seized under D.C.'s animal cruelty statute, alleging that the law and its enforcement violated due process by failing to provide notice or hearings, was unconstitutionally vague, and supported various common-law tort claims. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, allowing the procedural due process claims to proceed while dismissing others such as certain vagueness challenges. The core reasoning was that the statute, as applied, did not afford pet owners an opportunity to contest seizures or conditions of return, though the term 'neglect' was interpreted in light of related provisions to avoid facial invalidity.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the federal government's decision to take two parcels of land in Michigan into trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians to develop a casino, following the tribe's federal recognition in 1999 and its 2001 application. Plaintiff Michigan Gambling Opposition challenged the action under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Constitution's non-delegation doctrine, arguing that the site did not qualify as an initial reservation, that an environmental impact statement was required instead of a finding of no significant impact, that no tribal-state compact existed, and that the land acquisition authority was invalid. The court granted the defendants' and intervenor's motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, holding that no genuine issues of material fact existed. It reasoned that the land met IGRA criteria for an initial reservation, the environmental assessment adequately supported the FONSI under NEPA guidelines, a compact was not yet required for the approval stage, and the delegation of authority to take land into trust was constitutional with intelligible principles.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Spray Drift Task Force's petition to confirm a 2005 arbitration award requiring Burlington Bio-Medical Corp. to pay $671,472 plus interest as compensation under FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(F) for relying on Spray Drift's data in its pesticide registration application for carbaryl. The court confirmed the award in full, noting that Burlington neither opposed confirmation nor filed a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct it under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 12. The court also authorized immediate registration of the judgment in other districts under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 for good cause, based on Burlington's lack of assets in the District of Columbia but presence of substantial assets elsewhere, and rejected arguments limiting such registration to pending appeals.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

In Smith v. Koplan, a former attorney adviser at the International Trade Commission alleged national origin discrimination and reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after resigning from her position. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not responding to EEOC discovery requests or orders during a hearing she had requested. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the administrative judge's Acknowledgment Order, explain her absence after returning from travel, or otherwise cooperate constituted abandonment of the administrative process. The ruling relied on precedents requiring strict adherence to EEOC procedures, under which non-cooperation with discovery equates to failure to exhaust remedies and bars federal court claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

Charles Shark was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, unlawful distribution of cocaine base, and criminal forfeiture, and was sentenced as a career offender to 360 months in prison plus supervised release and forfeiture. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate or correct his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, including claims that the trial judge created a conflict of interest impairing his counsel's performance, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and sentencing, improper application of the career offender guideline, and violations of Apprendi v. New Jersey. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that several trial and appeal claims had already been rejected on direct appeal, that most ineffective assistance allegations failed to meet the Strickland standard or were not prejudicial, and that certain sentencing issues warranted partial relief while Apprendi claims were not retroactively available in this posture.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved unions challenging an order by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority that altered overtime pay calculations for District employees in a way that conflicted with existing collective bargaining agreements. The court initially granted summary judgment to the unions, finding the order exceeded the Authority's statutory authority. After Congress enacted legislation in 2000 that retroactively ratified the order and gave it full force, the defendants moved to dismiss. Relying on the D.C. Circuit's decision in Thomas v. Network Solutions, the court held that the congressional ratification was valid because Congress intended to ratify the order, had authority to authorize it originally, and the ratification did not impermissibly interfere with intervening rights. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved Uniboard Aktiebolag's patent infringement claims against multiple computer companies regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,303,986, which had been assigned to Uniboard by inventor Hakan Lans in 1989 and expired in 1999. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Uniboard could not recover damages because it had not provided the required actual notice of infringement before the patent's expiration. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that neither Lans's 1996 letter nor his 1997 lawsuits constituted valid notice from the patentee Uniboard under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and that Uniboard's own filing of suit in 1999 occurred after expiration, leaving no period for recoverable damages or injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In MacKtal v. Garde, the plaintiff sued his former attorneys alleging they coerced him into settling a 1986 whistleblower retaliation complaint he had filed with the Department of Labor against his employer, Brown & Root, after his removal from a nuclear power facility for raising safety concerns. The plaintiff also claimed mishandling of settlement proceeds and other malfeasance. After extensive administrative and appellate proceedings, including a Fifth Circuit ruling that the underlying claim did not involve protected activity under the Energy Reorganization Act, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court held that a legal malpractice claim requires the plaintiff to show the underlying cause of action was viable, which it was not, and denied leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed additions did not cure this defect.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In this patent infringement case, plaintiff Hakan Lans sued Gateway 2000 after the court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the action, ruling that Lans lacked standing because he was not the owner of the patent at issue. Lans then filed a Rule 60(b)(2) motion seeking relief from that judgment based on newly discovered evidence, specifically a 1989 "Clarification-Contract" document purporting to address the transfer of patent rights to his company Uniboard AB. The court denied the motion, finding that the document did not qualify as newly discovered evidence under the rule's requirements because it either existed and could have been located earlier with due diligence or failed to meet the criteria of being material and likely to change the outcome regarding standing. The decision emphasized the high bar for reopening final judgments and the need to balance finality with justice.

procedureproperty

This case involved Andrx Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss Biovail Corporation's counterclaim alleging antitrust violations related to an agreement with HMRI concerning the marketing of a generic version of the drug Cardizem CD under FDA regulations from the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The court granted the motion, holding that Biovail lacked standing to assert the federal antitrust claims. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision was based on Biovail's failure to demonstrate sufficient injury or connection to the challenged agreement between Andrx and the patent holder.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Hakan Lans against Gateway 2000, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,303,986. Lans had assigned all rights in the patent, including the right to sue for prior infringements, to Uni-board Aktiebolag in 1989, but he filed and prosecuted the suit in his own name without disclosing the assignment. After the assignment was revealed during discovery, Lans moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 17(a) to amend the complaint by substituting Uni-board as the plaintiff. The court denied the motion to amend, finding that Lans lacked standing because he was not the patent owner at the time of filing, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the same ground.

procedure

The case involved a plaintiff who claimed that FBI agents and others conspired to obstruct justice and intimidate him to prevent truthful testimony before a grand jury investigating the death of Vincent Foster. The plaintiff alleged falsified reports, surveillance, and harassment following his subpoena to testify. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of any agreement or conspiracy among the defendants, and denied the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint.

civil rightscriminal law

In Williams v. United States, a class of twenty Article III federal district judges sued seeking a declaration that Section 140 of Pub.L. No. 97-92 did not block annual Employment Cost Index salary adjustments due under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, or alternatively that the section was unconstitutional or void. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. It held that Section 140 was not permanent legislation, had expired or been superseded by the Ethics Reform Act, and that the 1989 Act provided for automatic adjustments to judges' salaries whenever General Schedule employees received them, with the only condition being such an adjustment for those employees. The court further reasoned that the adjustments vested in 1991 and that withholding them pursuant to Section 140 would unconstitutionally diminish judicial compensation in violation of the Compensation Clause.

federal power

The case concerned an EPA employee who sought to communicate with other federal agencies on behalf of environmental groups regarding public policy issues unrelated to his EPA duties, but was advised that doing so would violate the conflict-of-interest statute 18 U.S.C. § 205 or create the appearance of a violation under OGE ethics rules. The plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief to clarify the permissible scope of his activities, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that the statute applies to the proposed communications because they involve attempts to influence agency decisions on particular matters, interpreting the statutory language broadly to encompass such representations even when unrelated to the employee's official work. It rejected application of the rule of lenity, finding the conduct clearly covered by the text and legislative history, and distinguished precedents that did not involve government employees addressing federal agencies.

environmentfree speechfederal powercriminal law

This case involved the State of New Mexico and environmental plaintiffs seeking to block the Department of Energy from shipping certain non-mixed transuranic waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) nuclear waste repository. The plaintiffs argued that the shipments would violate a 1992 permanent injunction from this court as well as state hazardous waste regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The court denied the motion to construe the 1992 injunction as barring the shipments and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the prior injunction did not apply to this non-hazardous waste stream, that the New Mexico Environmental Department had confirmed the waste as non-RCRA regulated, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a motion by three CBS journalists to quash grand jury subpoenas duces tecum issued by Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz, which sought testimony and documents related to a 60 Minutes segment on Don Tyson's relationship with Bill Clinton and potential gratuities to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. The Independent Counsel was investigating possible federal criminal violations by Espy and Tyson Foods under his appointed authority. The court denied the motion to quash, ordered the journalists to comply with the subpoenas, and declined to unseal the filings. It reasoned that the Independent Counsel had followed Department of Justice guidelines for media subpoenas, that the requests were not unreasonable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), that no journalists' privilege applied in this grand jury context, and that the subpoenas fell within the Independent Counsel's jurisdictional scope without being used improperly for trial preparation.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case concerns former President Nixon's challenge under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, in which he claimed personal ownership of his presidential historical materials and sought Fifth Amendment compensation for the government's retention of them. On remand from the Court of Appeals' ruling that the materials were Nixon's private property and subject to a per se taking, the district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on the measure of any compensation due. The court denied the government's motion seeking zero compensation based on the Emoluments Clause or equitable principles, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on declaratory relief, and granted the government's alternative motion for partial summary judgment regarding certain excluded or valueless materials. The core reasoning was that prior appellate holdings had resolved the Emoluments Clause and ownership issues in the plaintiffs' favor, leaving questions of compensation for further proceedings while limiting the scope to materials fitting the statutory definition.

propertyfederal power

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by Television Digest, publisher of the trade newsletter Communications Daily, against the United States Telephone Association (USTA) for making 12 to 26 photocopies of each daily issue for its staff from 1981 to 1985 instead of purchasing additional subscriptions. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under the Copyright Act of 1976, finding that the newsletter is entitled to copyright protection because it contains original news stories and expression beyond mere compilations of public facts, and that USTA's systematic reproduction infringed the owner's exclusive rights. The court denied summary judgment on damages, concluding that material facts remained in dispute. The decision rests on the statutory presumption of ownership from copyright registrations and the requirement that unauthorized copying of protected material establishes infringement.

business & regulatoryproperty