Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed derivative actions asserting claims against Fannie Mae's directors regarding accounting irregularities. The district court entered three orders now on appeal, substituting Fannie Mae's conservator, the FHFA, for plaintiff shareholders. The court affirmed the orders but reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The court also held that dismissal on the grounds of claim preclusion was moot. View "Kellmer v. Raines, et al." on Justia Law

Occidental and a number of its subsidiaries petitioned for review of final orders of the FERC granting negotiated rate authority to Tres Amigas, a proposed energy transmission project. Occidental argued that Tres Amigas did not satisfy the criteria the FERC had set out as preconditions for such authority. Because the court concluded that Occidental lacked standing to challenge these orders, the court did not reach this question and instead dismissed the petition. View "Occidental Permian Ltd. v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Board sought enforcement of its order directing the Company to bargain in good faith with the Union. The Company, in its petition for review, contested the Board's certification of the election in which the Union was named the bargaining representative of the Company's valet parking employees. The court concluded that the Board established the record of its analysis under the three-prong test of Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. NLRB, necessary to support its conclusions regarding the parties' intent with regard to the stipulated bargaining unit. Extrinsic evidence relied on by the Company failed to demonstrate error. The court also concluded that the failure of the Board Agent to provide identification badges to election observers did not result in an unfair or invalid election in the absence of evidence that the failure materially affected the result of the election, and the company offered no such evidence. Therefore, the Board acted within its discretion in sustaining the Union's challenges to the eight ballots cast by dual-rated bell-desk employees and in rejecting the Company's objections alleging misconduct by the Board's Agent. The Board was thus entitled to enforcement of its findings that the Company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5). View "Hard Rock Holdings, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over operation of an Exxon gas station located next to the Watergate in Washington, D.C. Metroil sued Exxon and Anacostia, claiming three violations of federal and D.C. law relating to the sale of the station by Exxon to Anacostia. The court concluded that the Retail Service Station Amendment Act of 2009, D.C. Code 36-304.12(a), did not take effect until after Exxon's sale to Anacostia and the law therefore did not give Metroil a right of first refusal in this case. Because it was undisputed that Metroil still operates the gas station, buys and sells Exxon fuel, and uses the Exxon trademark, the franchise relationship has continued. Therefore, Metroil's Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2802, claim was properly dismissed. All of the burdens and risks alleged by Metroil were permitted by the original contract and were not attributable to the assignment. Therefore, the court rejected Metroil's claims that Exxon violated the D.C. Code's prohibition against contract assignments that materially increased the burden or risk on the non-assigning party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Metroil, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., et al." on Justia Law

PTO sought review of a decision of the FLRA upholding an arbitrator's award in favor of the Union. The arbitrator concluded that PTO committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5), when it repudiated a provision in an agreement requiring that it make an annual request of the OPM to increase PTO's special schedule pay rates and, if OPM refused, to discuss "substantially equivalent alternatives" with POPA. PTO challenged the FLRA's determination that the provision constituted an "appropriate arrangement" under 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(3). The court granted PTO's petition on the ground that, under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the FLRA was bound by its earlier decision concluding the provision did not constitute an appropriate arrangement. View "U.S. Dept. of Commerce v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Between defendant's first and second trials, he filed a pro se complaint alleging that federal officials violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting warrantless searches of his apartment and a warehouse leased in his name. On May 28, 2008, after defendant's conviction in the second trial, the district court dismissed his civil case sua sponte under Heck v. Humphrey. More than eight months after that dismissal, on January 31, 2009, defendant filed a document in the district court styled as a "Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal pro se by Plaintiff" (January Motion). The district court denied defendant leave to file the January Motion and he responded by filing a document he styled a "Notice of Appeal," which stated that he wished to obtain review of the denial of the January Motion. The court determined that defendant was appealing the district court's denial of leave to file a notice of appeal, and therefore deemed defendant's filing a petition for mandamus. The court held that mandamus was unwarranted because the district court properly denied defendant leave to file. Accordingly, the court denied defendant's petition for mandamus. View "In re: Antoine Jones, et al." on Justia Law

Dayton was served with a citation alleging over 100 willful violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 654. Dayton contested the citation and by 1997, its appeal was before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Twelve years later, the Commission issued an order affirming nearly all of the violations and assessed a penalty. Dayton asked the court to set aside the order because of the Commission's delay. The court declined, holding that the delay alone was not enough to set aside the order. The court held, however, that the Commission lacked substantial supporting evidence for its finding that Dayton's violations were willful. Accordingly, the court vacated that portion of the Commission's order and remanded for the Commission to reassess the nature of Dayton's violations and recalculate the appropriate penalty. The court affirmed the Commission's order in all other respects. View "Dayton Tire v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Noble Energy and other lessees sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that application of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464, suspension requests constituted a material breach of their lease agreements to drill for, develop, and produce oil and natural gas on submerged lands off the coast of California. The Court of Federal Claims agreed; on appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed. One year after the Federal Circuit's decision in the breach-of-contract litigation, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), sent a letter to Noble ordering it to plug and abandon Well 320-2 permanently. The district court ruled that the common law doctrine of discharge did not relieve Noble of the regulatory obligation to plug its well permanently, an obligation that the lease did not itself create. Resolution of the dispute depended on what the plugging regulations meant. The court held that it was up to MMS's successor to interpret its regulation in the first instance and to determine whether they apply in situations like Noble's. If they do, the agency must explain why. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the district court with instructions to vacate Interior's order and to remand to the Secretary for further proceedings. View "Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Comau sought review of a decision of the Board affirming the finding of an ALJ that Comau committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. The court granted Comau's petition and vacated the Board's finding that Comau committed a ULP by unilaterally changing its employees' healthcare benefits. The court concluded that the Board's finding was arbitrary and capricious because all parties agreed that Comau and the union were at impasse one December 22, 2008. View "COMAU, INC. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant alleged that his employer, the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency, repeatedly rejected him for promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the agency. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims stemming from John Milne's promotion where the district court never reached the issue; reversed its grant of summary judgment with respect to his age and race discrimination claims stemming from Mark Reefe's promotion where genuine issues of material fact existed; and remanded for further proceedings. The court disposed of appellant's remaining arguments and affirmed in all other respects. View "Gilbert v. Napolitano" on Justia Law