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

This appeal stemmed from plaintiffs' suit against the government after the government alleged that plaintiffs failed to file adequate tax returns. The court understood plaintiffs' pro se appeal to contend that the government had waived the limitations defense by failing to raise it in its first dispositive motion. The court expressed no opinion on the government's jurisdictional argument and concluded instead that the government had not forfeited its limitations defense. The court also found plaintiffs' argument that the statute of limitations should have been tolled was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. View "Kim, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code 2-1404.01 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, against the City, alleging that she had suffered sexual harassment during the course of her employment with the DCFEMS. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim with prejudice because she had not filed a timely Charge with the EEOC, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her D.C. Human Rights Act claim. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff neither pursued her rights diligently nor proved that some extraordinary circumstance prevented her from satisfying the statute of limitations. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dyson v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, as well as ordered to pay restitution to his victims. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that defendant's appeal was not barred; rehabilitation was not the only factor the district court considered in determining defendant's prison time; the court found no support for the claim that defendant's prison term was longer than a wealthy person's term would have been for a similar crime; and because the government conceded at oral argument that defendant could not be ordered to enroll in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, the court modified his sentence to reflect the fact that enrollment was voluntary. As modified, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Godoy" on Justia Law

Appellee Sue Reisinger requested access to reports made by an independent consultant to evaluate AIG's internal policies and past transactions, asserting both common law and First Amendment rights of access. The district court concluded, over the opposition of the SEC and AIG, that Reisinger had a common law right of access and ordered public disclosure of redacted copies of the reports. AIG appealed. The court held that the reports were neither judicial records nor public records. Even assuming the First Amendment right of access applied, the reports were not "aspects of court proceedings" and have no bearing on monitoring judicial conduct. Accordingly, there was no common law or First Amendment right of access to the reports and the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "SEC v. American Int'l Group" on Justia Law