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

This case stemmed from a contract between the Indonesian government and the Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon), a United States corporation, and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries where Exxon operated a large natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh province. Plaintiffs were fifteen Indonesian villagers. Eleven villagers filed a complaint in 2001 alleging that Exxon's security forces committed murder, torture, sexual assault, battery, and false imprisonment in violation of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and various common law torts. Four villagers alleged that in 2007, Exxon committed various common law torts. All plaintiffs alleged that Exxon took actions both in the United States and at its facility in the Aceh province that resulted in their injuries. Plaintiffs challenged the subsequent dismissal of their claims and Exxon filed a cross-appeal, inter alia, raising corporate immunity for the first time. The court concluded that aiding and abetting liability was well established under the ATS. The court further concluded that neither the text, history, nor purpose of the ATS supported corporate immunity for torts based on heinous conduct allegedly committed by its agents in violation of the law of nations. The court affirmed the dismissal of the TVPA claims in view of recent precedent of the court. The court concluded, however, that Exxon's objections to justiciability were unpersuasive and that the district court erred in ruling that plaintiffs lacked prudential standing to bring their non-federal tort claims and in the choice of law determination. The court finally concluded that Exxon's challenge to the diversity of parties in the complaint at issue was to be resolved initially by the district court. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' TVPA claims, reversed the dismissal of the ATS claims at issue, along with plaintiffs' non-federal tort claims, and remanded the cases to the district court.

This appeal stemmed from a short sale transaction that raised UTA Management's outside basis in the UTAM partnership. On October 13, 2006, more than six years after the filing of UTAM's 1999 partnership return, but less than six years from the filing of the individual partner's 1999 individual return, the IRS mailed a notice of final partnershp administrative adjustment to DDM Management, UTAM's "tax matters" partner, pertaining to UTAM's 1999 tax year. At issue was whether the mailing of a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment by the IRS tolled an individual partner's limitation period under I.R.C. 6501. The court held that the six-year limitations period applied with regard to the individual partner's 1999 return and that the assessment period, suspended pursuant to I.R.C. 6229(d), was the partner's open assessment period under section 6501. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tax Court on the statute of limitations issue was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Two businesses with nearly identical names, John C. Flood, Inc. ("1996 Flood") and John C. Flood of Virginia, Inc. ("Virginia Flood"), brought suit against each other over which company had the right to use two trademarks: JOHN C. FLOOD and its abridged form FLOOD. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that 1996 Flood was the proper owner of the two trademarks and that Virginia Flood, as the licensee of the marks, was estopped from challenging 1996 Flood's ownership. The court affirmed the district court's order granting 1996 Flood's motion for partial summary judgment and held that 1996 Flood was the proper successor-in-interest to John C. Flood, Inc. ("1984 Flood"), and that Virginia Flood was barred by the doctrine of licensee estoppel from challenging 1996 Flood's ownership of those marks. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment but remanded the case back to the district court for clarification regarding whether Virginia Flood's use of the mark JOHN C. FLOOD OF VIRGINIA was prohibited by the court's decision.

Appellant submitted a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Board") seeking information related to the Board's March 14, 2008 decision to authorize the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to provide a temporary loan to The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. through an extension of credit to JPMorgan Chase & Co. The Board produced documents in response to appellant's request but withheld others pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 8. Appellee filed suit in district court to compel disclosure of the withheld documents and subsequently appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Board. At issue was whether the district court properly withheld documents under FOIA Exemption 5 or, in the alternative, Exemption 8, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the withheld materials constituted "intra-agency memorandum or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5 and that disclosure of the type of information withheld here would, under the deliberative process privilege, impair the Board's ability to obtain necessary information in the future and could chill the free flow of information between the supervised institutions and the Board and Reserve Bank. The court also held that a document withheld under Exemption 5 pursuant to the attorney work product privilege was prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore, the Board properly withheld the document. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Board.

Plaintiff, a shareholder in Avenir Corporation ("Avenir"), brought a shareholder derivate suit naming Avenir and its three principal officers ("principals") as defendants and alleged that the principals engaged in various forms of financial misconduct as Avenir's managers. At issue was whether the district court properly granted attorney's fees for abuse of discretion to plaintiff where plaintiff originally filed in Superior Court and defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. 1441, where Avenir's primary place of business was in D.C., and where the district court found removal improper under section 1441(b). The court held that the district court improperly awarded attorney's fees to plaintiff where Avenir was a nominal defendant and defendants' reasoning had at least some logical and precedential force behind it.

AdSurfDaily, Inc., an internet marketing company incorporated and controlled by appellant, appealed a default judgment and final order of forfeiture after they withdrew their claims in this civil forfeiture action where federal agents seized $80 million of the company's bank account funds as part of an investigation of the company for wire fraud and money laundering. The government filed a complaint for forfeiture in rem against the funds and two pieces of real property that had been purchased with AdSurfDaily money. At issue was whether the district court violated appellants' due process rights when it failed to stay the forfeiture action pending the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding and when the district court denied them an opportunity to challenge the forfeiture on the merits when it refused to reinstate their withdrawn claims. The court held that the district court did not violate appellants' due process rights when they never asked for a stay and where due process did not require the government to provide a person with the opportunity to challenge the seizure of property he had voluntarily forfeited. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reinstate withdrawn claims when the withdrawal was the product of a free, deliberate choice.

Appellant, a shareholder and former chief executive officer of Tama Broadcasting, Inc. ("Tama"), filed an application for review with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") challenging the FCC Media Bureau's approval of the assignment applications made by Tama's receiver after a judicial foreclosure action was brought against Tama. At issue was whether appellant had standing under Article III to file an application for review. The court held that appellant lacked standing where his injuries could not be traced to the FCC's approval of the license assignments and where the alleged injuries were caused by Tama's default on its loan payments, the foreclosure action against Tama, and the New York court's appointment of a receiver.