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

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the District police violated her common-law, statutory, and constitutional rights when they arrested her for disorderly conduct. The jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. The District and its officers appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the radio log. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by issuing a missing evidence instruction but that the error was not prejudicial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Huthnance v. District of Columbia, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant fled to the United States after a Hong Kong magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of smuggling, evasion of customs duties, bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. 2467(d)(3) for a restraining order to preserve appellant's assets. The court concluded that the district court's restraining order was issued in a manner consistent with the procedural due process protections of 18 U.S.C. 983(j)(1)(A) where the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings in this case afforded protections consistent with those afforded by the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint in the United States. The court need not decide whether all of those proceedings were required, or whether fewer or different proceedings would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the proceedings appellant was afforded was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of section 2467(d)(3). View "Luan, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with drug-related offenses, the Government committed a series of disclosure violations leading to, and then extending beyond, the district court's declaration of a mistrial based upon such violations. Before retrial, the prosecutor belatedly disclosed more information that defendant had subpoenaed before the first trial. Defendant argued that he would have seen the first trial through to a verdict but for the Government's latest disclosure violation. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause but the district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prosecutor's several violations were unintentional. View "United States v. McCallum" on Justia Law

In two unconsolidated cases, UBCJA and SWRCC (collectively, Carpenters) appealed the district court's confirmation of two arbitration awards in favor of Plasterers. The court concluded that these cases were not moot because future arbitrable jurisdictional disputes raising the same legal issue seem reasonably likely to occur; in Case No. 11-7161, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying briefing and argument on the timing issue; in Case No. 11-7155, the district court correctly declined to give Jordan Interiors I estoppel effect in Frye; and, on the merits, the court rejected Carpenters' challenges to the arbitrators' authority to enter their respective awards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment to the Plasterers, thereby confirming the arbitrators' awards in their favor. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit after the WMATA bus that she was riding in collided with a car, causing her a variety of injuries. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that it must treat the bus driver's violations of two District of Columbia traffic regulations as negligence per se rather than as evidence of negligence. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that it was error to give a negligence per se instruction, but that the error did not warrant reversal because it did not affect the outcome of the trial. Giving a negligence per se instruction with respect to a statute or regulation that merely restated the common law standard was redundant rather than harmful. View "Sibert-Dean v. WMATA" on Justia Law

Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 49 U.S.C. 24101, empowers Amtrak and the FRA to jointly develop performance measures to enhance enforcement of the statutory priority Amtrak's passenger rail service has over trains. AAR challenged the statutory scheme as unconstitutional. The court concluded that section 207 impermissibly delegated regulatory authority to Amtrak. The court need not reach AAR's separate argument that Amtrak's involvement in developing the metrics and standards deprived its members of due process. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Assoc. of American Railroads v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that the sentencing court relied on defendant's "flawed" guideline range in this case, opening the door to "reexamination" of his sentence under a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding; because of the government's substantial assistance motion, no mandatory minimum was at work when the district court sentenced defendant; without the mandatory minimum bar, no provision kept Amendment 750 from having "the effect of lowering" defendant's applicable guideline range, leaving defendant eligible under the policy statement to pursue a sentence reduction; and the policy statement did not foreclose 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) defendants from receiving reductions on that basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

In 2006, DOL issued an opinion letter concluding that mortgage loan officers with archetypal job duties fell within the administrative exemption. In 2010, DOL issued an "Administrator's Interpretation" declaring that "employees who perform the typical job duties" of the hypothetical mortgage loan officer "do not qualify as bona fide administrative employees." Petitioner challenged DOL's decision to change their "definitive interpretation" without first undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. Having conceded the existence of two definitive - and conflicting - agency interpretations, the government acknowledged that petitioner prevailed if the only reason courts look to reliance was to find out if there was a definitive interpretation. The court held that there was no discrete reliance element and that reliance was just one part of the definitiveness calculus. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment and remanded with instructions to vacate DOL's 2010 Administrative Interpretation. View "Mortgage Bankers Assoc. v. Solis, et al." on Justia Law

The Conference Group challenged the Commission's decision that the audio bridging services provided by InterCall were properly classified as "telecommunications" under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and thereby obligated it and "similarly situated" providers to contribute directly to the Universal Service Fund (USF), 47 U.S.C. 254(d). The court concluded that the Conference Group had standing to challenge the Commission's decision as procedurally unlawful rulemaking; on the merits, the Commission's decision involved a statutory interpretation that could be rendered in the form of an adjudication, not only in a rulemaking; because the decision was an adjudication and The Conference Group was not a party, it lacked standing to challenge the merits of the adjudication; and, therefore, the court dismissed in part and denied in part The Conference Group's petition for review. View "The Conference Group, LLC v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer with the Parks Service, filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging workplace discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment against him on his claim that workplace supervisors unlawfully denied him time-off awards in retaliation for his pursuit of a protected activity. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the entitlement to an award and, as such, he could not demonstrate that the failure of his employer to nominate him for time-off awards materially affected the terms of his employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bridgeforth v. Salazar" on Justia Law