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

This case stemmed from the mortgage plaintiff carried on her New York house. In 2001, WaMu acquired the note and mortgage and then assigned it to Fannie Mae. Thereafter, plaintiff's home went into foreclosure, WaMu failed, and the FDIC became its receiver. In 2009, plaintiff brought this action against the FDIC, alleging that WaMu "owned and/or serviced the mortgage," and that it engaged in wrongful conduct in the foreclosure's aftermath. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff appealed and the FDIC argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely. The court held that the district court's order ran afoul of Rule 4(a)(5)(C), which limited any extensions to thirty days, meaning that the last permissible day would have been the day before plaintiff filed her notice. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Rule 4(a)(5)(C) time limit was a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, and that the FDIC forfeited its timeliness objection. The court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Youkelsone v. FDIC" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant invoked the Sentencing Commission's reductions in the offense level for certain crack cocaine offenses. The district court denied defendant's motion, noting on the record a host of facts about defendant's criminal record and his disciplinary infractions in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to determine the extent of the reduction for which he was eligible before denying his motion. In particular, defendant believed that the court could have underestimated the permissible reduction in the sentencing range, and that this hypothetical underestimate could have played a role in the court's refusal to make any reduction at all. Although the court agreed with defendant that a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) required the court first to compute the sentence reduction available, the court found that the record established that it did so. View "United States v. David" on Justia Law

Relator, on behalf of the United States, appealed the district court's dismissal of his qui tam complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The district court held that an earlier-filed complaint barred its consideration of relator's complaint under the first-to-file rule of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5). At issue was whether Section 3730(b)(5) required the first-filed complaint to meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for alleging fraud in order to bar a later-filed complaint. The court held that the earlier-filed complaint alleged the same material elements of a fraudulent scheme as relator's complaint, and that the earlier-filed complaint need not meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) to allege facts sufficient to prompt a government investigation, and thus, to bar later-filed complaints under Section 3730(b)(5). The court also held that relator waived his argument that the case should not have been dismissed with prejudice. View "Batiste v. SLM Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, an agency within the United States Department of Labor. The issue on appeal was whether a Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector was authorized to designate the violation of a safeguard notice issued pursuant to section 314(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as "significant and substantial" under section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act, which limited the "significant and substantial" designation to a violation of a "mandatory health or safety standard." The court agreed with the Commission majority that the violation of a safeguard notice issued pursuant to section 314(b) amounted to a violation of section 314(b) and was therefore a violation of a mandatory safety standard which could be designated "significant and substantial." Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Wolf Run Mining Co. v. MSHR" on Justia Law