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

The Union filed suit against WUSA-TV, a television station, alleging that the station breached its contractual obligations by laying off a technician. Because the grievance did not "arise under" the 2008 bargaining agreement, and the 2012 agreement was not yet in effect, the district court concluded that the station was not obligated to arbitrate. The court affirmed, concluding that seniority provisions in the 2008 agreement did not create vested or accrued rights and therefore, the grievance was not arbitrable under the 2008 agreement. Nor do the qualified seniority protections against layoffs contained in the 2008 agreement survive expiration under normal principles of contract interpretation. Moreover, the union's extrinsic evidence was itself ambiguous. Finally, the court rejected the Union's claim that the grievance was arbitrable under the 2012 agreement. View "Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Detroit Free Press, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners, three non-profit environmental and wildlife organizations, filed suit challenging EPA's decisions concerning both the primary and secondary standards for carbon monoxide. The primary standards for carbon monoxide have remained the same since 1971 and there has not been a secondary standard for carbon monoxide since EPA revoked a secondary standard in 1985. In 2011, EPA decided to keep things as they were: to retain the same primary standards and to continue without a secondary standard. The court concluded that EPA acted reasonably in retaining the same primary standards for carbon monoxide, and that petitioners lacked Article III standing to challenge EPA's decision not to set a secondary standard for carbon monoxide. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the primary standards and dismissed the petition for review of the secondary standard for lack of standing. View "Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, CHW, was the surviving entity after a merger between Marian and the hospitals previously constituting CHW. Plaintiff's claim related to depreciation taken by Marian in the years before the merger. Plaintiff argued that the merger transaction revealed the inadequacy of that depreciation and that, under the statute and regulations applicable to the merger, the deficiency was subject to recoupment as part of Medicare providers' general entitlement to compensation for the "reasonable cost" of services rendered, 42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)(1). The Secretary rejected the claim, reasoning that the implicit selling price showed a transfer for much less than Marian's true worth, so that the merger did not present a "bona fide sale" between "unrelated parties," a prerequisite for use of the transaction as evidence that the prior depreciation had been inadequate. The court concluded that, under the valuation methods permitted prior to the Program Memorandum at issue and in fact championed by plaintiff here and in the administrative proceedings, there was a gross disparity between Marian's value and the implicit price paid. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the Secretary. View "Catholic Healthcare West v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

The USPS sought review of three orders of the Commission implementing the court's mandate in GameFly, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission (GameFly I). In GameFly I, the Commission found that USPS violated the proscription of undue or unreasonable discrimination in 39 U.S.C. 403(c) when it refused to provide to GameFly the same special manual processing service for first class round-trip letter DVD mailers that USPS provided to Netflix. The court upheld the Commission's finding of discrimination but rejected the remedy it adopted - reducing the DVD flat service rate - because it left in place unjustified residual discrimination in that GameFly was still forced to pay a higher rate than Netflix paid to obtain comparable DVD protection. The court remanded for the district court to justify the residual discrimination or eliminate it entirely. On remand, the Commission adopted a remedy which equalizes the cost of first class letter and flat DVD rates, enabling GameFly to use either service at the same cost. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was consistent with the court's decision in GameFly I and with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198. Accordingly, the court denied USPS's petition for review. View "USPS v. Postal Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The Board moved to transfer this petition for review of one of its orders to the Ninth Circuit where another petition for review of the same order has been filed. Although the Board conceded that it received the court-and-date-stamped copy of Remington's petition within 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(1)'s ten-day time limit, it argued that it did not receive the copy from the persons instituting the proceedings. Because every petitioner seeking review of a Board order must comply with section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(f), section 2112(a) could serve its separate notice function only if petitioners wishing to take advantage of that section's forum selection procedure comply with it separately. Requiring petitioners to comply personally with section 2112(a) alerted the agency that the petitioner cared about its chosen forum and, as the Board explained, imposed the burden of compliance on the party seeking to benefit from section 2112(a). Therefore, the court must transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit. The court granted the motion to transfer. View "Remington Lodging & Hospitality v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Fisher-Cal filed suit alleging that the Air Force violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., when the Air Force opted not to renew a contract for multimedia services with Fisher-Cal and decided to in-source the services. On appeal, Fisher-Cal challenged the district court's appeal of its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court accepted the reasoning of the Federal Circuit in Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, which held that lawsuits involving decisions whether to in-source or contract fell within the jurisdiction of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491. Accordingly, Fisher-Cal's challenge to the Air Force's decision to in-source was governed by the Tucker Act and therefore the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fisher-Cal Indus., Inc. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for bank and wire fraud. The court rejected defendant's challenges to his conviction, his aggravating role enhancement, and his restitution obligation. However, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the government conceded that the district court's retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause where the district court sentenced defendant under the 2010 Guidelines for crimes he committed years earlier. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Michael Queen, an NBC Employee, claimed an entitlement to a portion of Ed Schultz's income from the "The Ed Show" on MSNBC based on their alleged agreement to co-develop a show. Queen sued Schultz in district court, and Schultz counterclaimed against Queen for fraud, slander, and liable. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that neither Queen nor Schultz was liable to the other for anything. Queen appealed. The court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Schultz on Queen's claim that he, Max Schindler, and Schultz entered into an enforceable contract to divide the profits from a potential television show 50/25/25. However, the court concluded that there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Queen and Schultz formed a partnership to develop a television show and, if so, whether Schultz was liable to Queen for breach of partnership duties. Therefore, the court reversed that portion of the district court's judgment and remanded to enable Queen to present his partnership theory to a jury. View "Queen v. Schultz" on Justia Law

Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, a Yemeni national who has been detained by the United States at Guantanamo since 2002 as an enemy combatant, appealed the denial of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief from holding him in violation of a 1946 executive agreement between Yemen and the United States. The court concluded that Abdullah has not made a clear showing that he was entitled to the requested declaration. Even accepting arguendo, first, his claim that indefinite detention violates the Yemen Agreement and, second, that he could enforce the protections of the Agreement in court, he failed to demonstrate that he was likely to succeed on his habeas petition because he has not shown that his detention was indefinite or otherwise illegal. The court also concluded that Abdullah failed to demonstrate that the remaining preliminary injunction factors weigh in his favor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Abdullah, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved numerous claims concerning environmental hazards at three sites on Navajo land in Arizona. El Paso, the successor-in-interest to the corporation that mined uranium at the Mill, filed suit against the United States and others, raising claims under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 7901-7942, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k. The Tribe intervened and asserted parallel claims under these acts, as well as additional claims against the Government. The court reversed the dismissal "with prejudice" of El Paso's RCRA claims that related to the Dump; remanded with instructions to the district court to enter judgment against El Paso "without prejudice;" vacated the district court's dismissal of El Passo's RCRA claims as to the Highway 160 Site; remanded the case so that these claims could be considered on the merits; and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all other respects. View "El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law