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

Relator filed a qui tam suit against AT&T and nineteen of its subsidiaries. At issue is whether an earlier and still pending qui tam lawsuit filed against a single AT&T subsidiary bars this suit under the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), which prohibits qui tam actions that rely on the same material fraudulent actions alleged in another pending lawsuit. The court held that the first-to-file bar does not apply because the Wisconsin action alleges fraud based on affirmative pricing misrepresentations by seemingly rogue Wisconsin Bell employees. The present complaint, by contrast, alleges fraud and its concealment arising from a centralized and nationwide corporate policy of failing to enforce known statutory pricing requirements. In the alternative, the complaint does not fail to plead the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) where the complaint lays out in detail the nature of the fraudulent scheme, the specific governmental program at issue, the specific forms on which misrepresentations were submitted or implicitly conveyed, the particular falsity in the submission’s content, its materiality, the means by which the company concealed the fraud, and the timeframe in which the false submissions occurred. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "USA ex rel. Todd Heath v. AT&T, Inc." on Justia Law

Harman and three of its officers are alleged to have knowingly and recklessly propped up the Company’s stock price by making materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s financial condition and by failing to disclose related material adverse facts in violation of federal securities laws. At issue is whether the complaint stated a plausible claim of securities fraud with respect to three alleged statements that focus primarily on the status of the Company’s personal navigational device (“PND”) products. The court held that, although the challenge to the forward-looking nature of two statements was forfeited, the complaint plausibly alleges that those statements were not entitled to safe harbor protection because the accompanying cautionary statements were misleading insofar as they failed to account for historical facts about PNDs that would have been important to a reasonable investor. Further, the third statement, in the Company’s annual report, is plausibly understood, in the alleged circumstances, as a specific statement about its recent financial performance and not mere puffery. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Harman Int'l Indus." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to embezzling from an organization that received federal funds. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 24-months in prison. Even if the district court’s loss calculation were erroneous, the court would not require it to reconsider petitioner’s sentence; the court expressly stated that it would regard the same sentence as appropriate under either party’s calculation; and because that sentence is within-Guidelines, reasonable, and thoroughly explained, there is no warrant for a remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kaufman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, raised two challenges to the constitutionality of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). The court held that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief because this Court can consider his Appointments Clause and Commander-in-Chief Clause challenges on direct appeal, after the military commission renders a final judgment and the convening authority and the CMCR review it. Further, petitioner failed to demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Therefore, the court denied petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. View "In re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed by WASA for sixteen years, filed suit against WASA on numerous grounds, including violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., by retaliating against him for opposing racially discriminatory employment practices. The district court dismissed the complaint and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that, because plaintiff's complaint alleged facts that, if shown, would be at least sufficient to state a prime facie case of retaliation - and perhaps enough to survive summary judgment - it necessarily alleged facts sufficient to render his claim plausible at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal. View "Harris v. DC Water and Sewer Auth." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of fraud and embezzlement, argued that the district court erred in excluding two defense exhibits at trial. The fraud and embezzlement was in connection with defendant's management of a union of private security guards. The court concluded that it was error to exclude one of the defense exhibits, an employment contract, and remanded for the district court to determine whether that additional evidence affects defendant's sentence. In this case, the contract was potentially a significant piece of exculpatory evidence; the government has not identified any prejudice it would have suffered from the defense's use of the exhibit; and the district court did not find that the defense withheld the disputed contract in bad faith. Although the court rejected defendant’s conflict-of-interest theory, the court follows this circuit’s usual practice and remanded most of his ineffective assistance claims for initial determination by the district court. View "United States v. Gray-Burriss" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(9) and (b)(3) and implementing regulations are unconstitutional because the provisions, in effect, prohibit citizens not residing in any state from purchasing firearms. At issue was whether a citizen who permanently resides outside the United States has a right under the Second Amendment to purchase a firearm for self-defense while he is temporarily visiting this country. In this case, the court concluded that there are too many unanswered questions regarding plaintiff’s particular situation even though he seeks to mount an as applied challenge. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and remanded for trial. View "Dearth v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Z Street filed suit against the Commissioner, alleging that the “Israel Special Policy” violates the First Amendment. Z Street alleges that the agency has an “Israel Special Policy” under which applications from organizations holding “political views inconsistent with those espoused by the Obama administration” receive increased “scrutin[y]” that results in such applications “tak[ing] longer to process than those made by organizations without that characteristic.” The court agreed with the district court that Z Street seeks not to restrain “the assessment or collection” of a tax, but rather to obtain relief from unconstitutional delay, the effects of which it is now suffering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. View "Z Street v. Koskinen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging that they violated the Fourth Amendment and D.C. law because each officer assaulted her son and one killed him. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the actions of the officer who fired the fatal shots, thus making himself the only surviving eyewitness to the actual killing. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his favor. The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the second officer. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flythe v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The NTSB completed an investigation and issued reports identifying Georgina Joshi, the pilot, as the most likely cause of a plane crash. Georgina's father filed a petition seeking reconsideration of its conclusion in light of new evidence he gathered. The Board denied the petition. The court reported that it may not review the reports or the denial of the petition for reconsideration because they are not considered a final order subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joshi v. NTSB" on Justia Law