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

Plaintiff filed suit against the District, alleging claims of retaliation under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), D.C. Code 1-615.51. The jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff's testimony before the D.C. Council regarding her department's (APRA) new software program exposed information serious enough to warrant protection under the WPA and awarded her damages. The District appealed. The court concluded that the jury's verdict finds adequate support in the record and affirmed the district court's holding that the notice provision is a procedural requirement that, having been made inapplicable to the WPA, does not limit the claims a plaintiff may bring against the District under that statute, regardless whether the underlying conduct occurred while the notice provision was in effect. View "Williams v. Johnson" on Justia Law

WMATC filed suit against Paul Rodberg and his company, seeking an injunction to shut down Rodberg's illegal limousine operation. After the district court entered a default judgment, Rodberg ignored the default judgment and continued operating his limousine business under a different name. The district court issued another order enjoining all of Rodberg's companies from transporting passengers without a license. Rodberg appealed the default judgment and order. The court affirmed the default judgment where the district court did not abuse its discretion when it entered default judgment against Rodberg as a sanction for his total discovery lapse. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the subsequent order where the order did not modify the previous injunction because Rodberg's company was already bound by the earlier order as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in Case No. 13-7072 and dismissed in Case No. 13-7161. View "Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Reliable Limousine Serv." on Justia Law

Janet Howard and Joyce Megginson appealed the dismissal of their complaint on the grounds that the district court erred in failing to adhere to the time limits in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court held that the six-year statute of limitations for suits against the United States, 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), does not apply to claims filed pursuant to Title VII as amended to apply to federal employees. Because the district court erred in applying section 2401(a)'s six-year statute of limitations to appellants' Title VII claims, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for consideration of the second amended complaint. View "Howard v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

John Tyler and his wife filed suit seeking damages from various companies that manufacture products containing asbestos that he had been exposed. After Tyler died from a form of lung cancer caused by asbestos, Stephen Wannall became the personal representative of Tyler's estate. Honeywell was named in the suit as the successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation, which manufactured brake shoes that Tyler used in helping friends, family, and neighbors perform automobile repairs for over 50 years. Honeywell moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish the causal link required under Virginia law between Tyler's exposure to Bendix brakes and his disease. The district court denied the motion. While the parties were preparing for trial, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued Ford Motor Company v. Boomer, which rejected the "substantial" cause standard that the parties had previously understood as controlling, and ruled instead that plaintiffs must demonstrate that "exposure to the defendant's product alone must have been sufficient to have caused the harm." Honeywell moved for reconsideration of its motion for summary judgment in light of Boomer. Plaintiff opposed the motion but did not seek leave to file a new declaration of their expert under Rule 26(e). Nor did plaintiff move under Rule 56(d) for permission to take additional discovery in response to Honeywell's motion. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Honeywell's motion to strike the new expert declaration and its renewed motion for summary judgment pursuant to Boomer. View "Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant filed suit against the Republic of Cuba and others in Florida state court, alleging that appellees tortured appellant and that appellant continues to suffer the consequences of the torture. Appellant was incarcerated in Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, and endured unlawful incarceration and torture committed by the Cuban government and its codefendants. Appellant obtained a default judgment in state court and now seeks to execute that judgment on patents and trademarks held or managed by appellees in this action, who are allegedly agents and instrumentalities of Cuba. The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellant's request because the Florida state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the default judgment. View "Jerez v. Republic of Cuba" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in state court, challenging the foreclosure proceedings that ultimately resulted in the sale of his property. Defendants removed to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court affirmed the district court's order denying leave to amend plaintiff's complaint to add additional federal claims; vacated the district court's orders relating to the state-law claims against Chase and Shapiro & Burson because the D.C. statutory and common law claims against the bank and its foreclosing agent should have been decided by the local courts; and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to Superior Court for determination of plaintiff's state-law claims against those parties. View "Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of drug possession offenses and firearm offenses, appealed the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that the government's search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause to search his residence. Even assuming that the law enforcement officer's affidavit in this case did not support a finding of probable cause, this case falls within the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon where the affidavit relies overwhelmingly on the confidential informant (whose reliability defendant does not question) and the records checks. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

The family of Reverend Dong Shik Kim filed suit against the North Korean government, by invoking the terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1604, alleging that it abducted him, confined him to a political penal-labor colony, tortured him, and killed him. The court reversed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment. The court concluded that admissible evidence demonstrates that North Korea abducted Reverend Kim, that it invariably tortures and kills political prisoners, and that through terror and intimidation it prevents any information about those crimes from escaping to the outside world. Requiring a plaintiff to produce direct, first-hand evidence of the victim's torture and murder would thwart the purpose of the terrorism exception: holding state sponsors of terrorism accountable for torture and extrajudicial killing. Accordingly, the court found plaintiffs' evidence sufficiently "satisfactory" to require a default judgment. View "Han Kim v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on Justia Law

In 2008, EPA revised and strengthened the standards for ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. At issue are two challenges to EPA's regulations: first, EPA allowed affected regions more time to attain the new ozone standards as compared with the previous revision; and second, EPA revoked certain requirements, known as transportation conformity requirements, applicable to areas that had yet to attain governing ozone standards or that had recently come into attainment but remained under obligations aimed to prevent any reversion to nonattainment status. The court concluded that both challenged aspects of EPA's regulations exceed the agency's authority under the CAA. With regard to the attainment deadlines, all statutory indications militate against allowing the agency's lengthening of the periods for achieving compliance with revised air quality standards. With regard to the revocation of transportation conformity requirements, the terms of the statute straightforwardly require maintaining those requirements for affected areas. Accordingly, the court vacated the pertinent portions of the EPA's regulations. View "NRDC v. EPA" on Justia Law

101 environmental groups filed a petition with EPA asking it to regulate spent lead bullets and shot. The environmental groups invoked section 21 of the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601(a)(1), which allows any person to petition EPA for a rulemaking proceeding to regulate "chemical substances" that "present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment[.]" The district court held that EPA had authority to classify the petition as non-cognizable under the Act and dismissed the complaint. The court disagreed with the district court where nothing in section 21 allowed EPA to dismiss the petition as non-cognizable. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the judgment because the environmental groups have suggested no way in which EPA could regulate spent lead bullets and shot without also regulating cartridges and shells, precisely what section 3(2)(B)(v) of the Act prohibits. View "Trumpeter Swan Society v. EPA" on Justia Law