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

Advocacy Holdings, a company that helps clients influence public policy through its online platform OneClickPolitics, sued its former CEO, Chazz Clevinger, for breaching a noncompete agreement. Clevinger, who resigned in 2023, allegedly stole Advocacy’s customer list, started competing businesses, solicited Advocacy’s customers, and created a near duplicate of Advocacy’s platform. Advocacy sought a preliminary injunction to stop Clevinger’s actions, claiming irreparable harm.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia partially denied Advocacy’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that Advocacy had not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court did, however, enjoin Clevinger from using Advocacy’s platform design and interface but allowed him to continue operating his competing businesses and soliciting Advocacy’s customers. Advocacy appealed the partial denial of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Advocacy had not shown irreparable harm. The court noted that financial injuries, such as loss of customers, are typically remediable through monetary damages and do not constitute irreparable harm. Additionally, the court found that Advocacy’s claims of reputational harm were unsubstantiated and that the stipulation of irreparable harm in the noncompete agreement was forfeited because Advocacy did not raise it in its initial motion. The court also declined to consider Advocacy’s sliding-scale argument for evaluating preliminary injunction factors, as it was raised too late. The court concluded that without a showing of irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction was not warranted. View "Clevinger v. Advocacy Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) challenged the Postal Regulatory Commission's (Commission) handling of the United States Postal Service's (Postal Service) pricing of competitive products, arguing that the Postal Service underprices these products by not accounting for "peak-season" costs incurred during the holiday season. UPS claimed that these costs, driven by increased demand for package deliveries, should be attributed to competitive products rather than being treated as institutional costs.The Commission denied UPS's petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Commission found that UPS's methodology for calculating peak-season costs was flawed and did not produce reliable estimates. It also concluded that the existing cost-attribution framework already accounted for the costs caused by competitive products during the peak season. The Commission explained that the Postal Service's costing models, which use an incremental-cost approach, appropriately attribute costs to competitive products and that the remaining costs are correctly treated as institutional costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's rejection of UPS's methodology was reasonable and well-explained. The court noted that the Commission had addressed UPS's concerns about the Postal Service's costing models and had initiated further proceedings to explore potential updates to the models. The court also rejected UPS's argument that the Commission failed to consider whether peak-season costs are institutional costs uniquely associated with competitive products, noting that this issue was not properly presented in this case.The court denied UPS's petition for review, affirming the Commission's orders. View "United Parcel Service, Inc. v. PRC" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was tasked with evaluating a previous decision by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) regarding cost allocation between the United States Postal Service's (USPS) market-dominant and competitive products. United Parcel Service (UPS), a competitor of the USPS, challenged the PRC's formula for allocating institutional costs.The USPS offers both market-dominant products, like standard mail (where it holds a near-monopoly), and competitive products, like package delivery (where it competes with private companies like UPS). The PRC's task is to ensure that the USPS's competitive products cover an "appropriate share" of institutional costs. In 2020, the court had remanded the PRC's Order that adopted a formula for this "appropriate share", and asked the PRC to better explain its reasoning.On remand, the PRC revised its analysis but maintained the same formula. The court of appeals concluded that the PRC had adequately addressed the previous issues identified and reasonably exercised its statutory discretion in adopting the formula. Consequently, UPS's petition for review was denied.The court found that the PRC's interpretation of the distinction between costs attributable to competitive products and costs uniquely or disproportionately associated with competitive products was reasonable. It also found the PRC's decision to not include attributable costs directly in the appropriate share to be reasonable, to avoid double-counting. The court rejected UPS's claim that the PRC was required to allocate all of the USPS's institutional costs between market-dominant and competitive products, and it also found that the PRC had adequately considered competitive products' market conditions. Lastly, the court upheld the PRC's proposed formula for setting the appropriate share. View "United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

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

Trade associations representing commercial ship owners and operators petitioned for review of a nationwide permit issued by the EPA for the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Petitioners raised a number of procedural challenges, all related to the EPA's decision to incorporate into the permit conditions that states submitted to protect their own water quality. The court held that because petitioners had failed to establish that the EPA could alter or reject state certification conditions, the additional agency procedures they demanded would not have afforded them the relief they sought. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.