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

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

Defendant appealed his convictions for drug conspiracy charges, arguing that the 26-month delay between his arrest and the start of his trial violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq., and the Sixth Amendment. Because the district court's grant of the 270-day ends-of-justice continuance was both substantively and procedurally valid, the court concluded that the district court properly excluded the 104 days between January and July 2004 that defendant alleged should have been counted under the Act. The various days between late June 2005 and January 2006 at issue were also properly excluded. Because any error was not "clear or obvious" under the Barker v. Wingo analysis, the court was unpersuaded by defendant's Sixth Amendment challenges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rice" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the settlement of a lawsuit alleging Libya's responsibility for the 1986 LaBelle discotheque bombing in Berlin. The victims' lawyers received nearly $36 million for their efforts. Plaintiff, a retired federal agent who allegedly provided investigative and other services to the lawyers in the litigation, filed suit against the lawyers, alleging a claim of unjust enrichment. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's claim was untimely under the three-year statute of limitations because it accrued when plaintiff received a letter refusing his request for compensation. Although plaintiff's right to recover on his contractual claim - still pending in district court - may turn on the success of the lawsuit, his right of recovery on his unjust enrichment claim was based on the services he performed. View "Bregman v. Perles, et al." on Justia Law

CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request seeking various types of documents related to the FBI's investigation of Tom DeLay, the former Majority Leader. The FBI opened a wide-ranging public corruption investigation into the activities of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Two of those convicted from the investigation once served as senior aides to Tom DeLay. After the FBI declined to produce documents and CREW filed suit against the DOJ, the district court granted summary judgment to the DOJ. The court concluded that the DOJ has not met its burden to justify categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) or 7(C). Nor has it provided sufficient detail at this stage for a court to determine whether a portion of the requested records may be withheld under Exemption 3, 7(D), or 7(E). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Citizens for Responsibility v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of hospitals that serve a significant number of elderly, very low-income patients, filed suit challenging the Secretary's issuance of a rule concerning the "disproportionate share percentage" calculation of supplemental payments for low-income Medicare patients. When the Secretary published reimbursement calculations for FY 2007, petitioners learned that their payments would decrease by tens of millions of dollars per year. The rule change had an enormous financial consequence on hospitals. The court held that the Secretary did not provide adequate notice and opportunity to comment before promulgating its 2004 rule, and so affirmed the portion of the district court's opinion vacating the rule. The court reversed only the portion of the district court's opinion directing the Secretary to recalculate the hospitals' reimbursements using the alternate methodology. View "Allina Health Services, et al. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

AMI filed suit challenging the 2013 rule adopted by AMS, a branch of the Department of Agriculture, that modified its prior rule implementing Congress's requirements of country-of-origin labeling (COOL), 7 U.S.C. 1638a. The 2013 rule requires retailers of "muscle cuts" of meat to list the countries of origin and production steps occurring in each country. AMS's previous rule only required a list of the countries of origin preceded by the phrase "Product of." The 2013 rule also eliminated the prior rule's allowance of commingling. AMI argued that compulsion to make the disclosures required by the 2013 rule exceeded the authority granted by the COOL statute and violated its First Amendment rights. The court concluded that AMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and that any error in the district court's balancing of the other factors governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction could not on these facts outweigh the likely outcome on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying AMI's motion for a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the 2013 rule. View "American Meat Institute, et al. v. AGRI, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, defendant claimed that counsel's prior representation of an individual involved in the same arrest created an impermissible conflict of interest. The court concluded that, even under the Cuyler v. Sullivan standard applied to cases involving successive representation, defendant still had to demonstrate that counsel's alleged conflict of interest adversely affected his performance. Defendant has not done so where defendant claimed that counsel's performance was defective because counsel coerced defendant into pleading guilty but the record conclusively showed that defendant's guilty plea was voluntary, not coerced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction because the record conclusively rebutted defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Congress passed the Durbin Amendment as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, which modified the Electric Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), Pub. L. No. 96-630, 92 Stat. 3641. At issue were two key provisions of the EFTA: section 920(a), which restricted the amount of the interchange fee and section 920(b), which prohibited certain exclusivity and routing priority agreements. Merchant groups challenged the Board's issuance of regulations imposing a cap on the per-transaction fees banks received (section 920(a)) and, in an effort to force networks to compete for merchants' business, requiring that at least two networks owned and operated by different companies be able to process transactions on each debit card (section 920(b)). Merchant groups sought lower fees and even more network competition. The court applied traditional tools of statutory interpretation and held that the Board's rules generally rest on reasonable constructions of the statute. The court remanded one minor issue regarding the treatment of so-called transactions-monitoring costs to the Board for further explanation. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the merchants and remanded for further proceedings. View "NACS, et al. v. FRS" on Justia Law