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

This is an appeal from the denial of attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(1). After commencing an administrative civil penalties proceeding, the FAA withdrew its complaint and the ALJ before whom the complaint had been pending dismissed the proceedings with prejudice. Nonetheless, the FAA Administrator ruled that the subject of the complaint was not a "prevailing party" as that term had been interpreted in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res. Because the dismissal with prejudice had res judicata effect and ended the proceedings, the court granted the petition and remanded the case to the Administrator to determine whether the filing of the complaint was substantially justified, and if not, to award fees. View "Green Aviation Mgmt Co., LLC v. FAA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a number of MPD law enforcement personnel, asserting, inter alia, that various officers and their supervisors violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights by planning and conducting a 4:00 a.m. search on a warrant that did not authorize a nighttime search and breaking and entering into plaintiffs' home without knocking and announcing their presence. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce and nighttime search claims. The court agreed that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of plaintiffs' home nor their nighttime search violated clearly established law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Youngbey, et al. v. March, et al." on Justia Law

Mobil petitioned for review of the Commission's denial of Mobil's application for permission to charge market-based rates on Pegasus, in light of the competitiveness of the Western Canadian crude oil market and Pegasus's minor role in it. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was unreasonable in light of the record evidence where the record showed that producers and shippers of Western Canadian crude oil have numerous competitive alternatives to Pegasus for transporting and selling their crude oil; Pegasus did not possess market power; and therefore, the court granted Mobil's petition for review, vacated FERC's order, and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. View "Mobil Pipe Line Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioner, a hotel and casino, contracted with a restaurant corporation, which operated restaurants on petitioner's property. The primary issue raised by petitioner in this case was whether a property owner could bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. The court had previously determined that the governing statute and Supreme Court precedent granted the Board discretion over how to treat employees of onsite contractors in circumstances such as this one. Consequently, the Board had exercised its discretion on remand in the prior case and concluded that a property owner generally could not bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. Therefore, the court was bound by its prior decision and rejected petitioner's attempt to reopen it. The court also rejected petitioner's remaining arguments and denied the petition for review, granting the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order. View "New York-New York, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Postal Service sought review of the Commission's 2010 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD), which found in part that the rates for a particular product - Standard Mail Flats - were in violation of 39 U.S.C. 101(d)'s mandate. The Postal Service argued that the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Title 39 of the U.S. Code, did not permit reliance on section 101(d) for purposes of the ACD, and that the determination regarding Standard Flats was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded that the Commission acted within its statutory authority but remanded for an explanation of the relation between its remedy, on one hand, and its treatment of other products and indeed the bounds of its authority, on the other. View "USPS v. PRC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of two dairy operations, appealed the dismissal of their constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005 (MREA), 7 U.S.C. 608c. Plaintiffs alleged that the provisions, which subjected certain large producer-handlers of milk to contribution requirements applicable to all milk handlers, constituted a bill of attainder and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Because the court found that the MREA did not apply with specificity to affected persons, the court need not address whether it satisfied either of the remaining elements of a bill of attainder. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim. In regards to plaintiffs' remaining arguments, the court held that mere disparity of treatment was not sufficient to state an equal protection violation. The court also found that the government provided an explanation that was not only rational on its face but also had been consistently recognized by the courts as legitimate. Further, plaintiffs failed to plead the threshold requirement of a due process claim: that the government had interfered with a cognizable liberty or property interest. Finally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs to file a supplemental complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hettinga v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued United States Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging that the FBI refused to hire him as a special agent because of his Type I diabetes in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages. Subsequently, the district court denied both Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff's request for equitable relief. Both parties appealed. The court held that a reasonable jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff's diabetes and treatment regiment "substantially limited" his major life activity of eating and that plaintiff was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act. Rejecting the remaining arguments, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of equitable relief to plaintiff and rejected plaintiff's assertion that the district court erred in denying him front pay or instatement based on Holder's after-acquired evidence defense and in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to back pay based on the testimony of Holder's expert witness. View "Kapche v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of children who were eligible to receive a free and appropriate public education, filed suit to challenge the exclusion of mapping of cochlear implants from the regulatory definition of "related services" under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1401(26)(B). The court concluded that the phrase "audiology services" as used in the IDEA's "related services" definition did not unambiguously encompass mapping of cochlear implants. The court also found that the Mapping Regulations embodied a permissible construction of the IDEA because they were rationally related to the underlying objectives of the IDEA. The court further found that the Mapping Regulations did not substantially lessen the protections afforded by the 1983 regulations. Because the Department's construction of its own regulation was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulation, the court owed it deference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Department. View "Petit, et al. v. US Dept. of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Manufacturers obtained authorization from the Board to discontinue service over its entire system but the Board did not apply its entire-system exception. Instead, the Board required Manufacturers to pay dismissal allowances to its dismissed employees. The court concluded that the Board did not reasonably explain and justify the departure from its longstanding entire-system exception. Therefore, the court found that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Manufacturers Railway Co. v. STB, et al." on Justia Law

OSHA cited and fined petitioner for failing to properly record certain workplace injuries and for failing to properly maintain its injury log between January 2002 and April 2006. OSHA issued the citations in November 2006, which was, as petitioner pointed out, at least six months after the last unrecorded injury occurred. Because "[n]o citation may be issued...after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation, " 29 U.S.C. 658(c), the court agreed with petitioner that the citations were untimely and should be vacated. View "AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law