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

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against the District, the DOC, and several jail officials, seeking relief under federal law and D.C. common law for conspiracy, false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), deprivation of due process, aiding and abetting, and loss of consortium. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff, a Correctional Officer, was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a prison inmate. Plaintiff was arrested, criminally prosecuted, and fired from his employment. After being acquitted at his subsequent trial, where the inmate admitted to initiating the confrontation and assaulting plaintiff, and after prevailing in a contested administrative hearing, plaintiff was not reinstated until a D.C. Superior Court judge intervened. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the false arrest, malicious prosecution, and IIED claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.View "Amobi, et al. v. D.C. Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the EPA's rule exempting from regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., certain hazardous residuals left over from the petroleum refining process (the Gasification Exclusion Rule). The court held that petitioners had standing; their petitions for review were timely; and the Gasification Exclusion Rule violates the plain statutory text of section 6924(q). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review in No. 08-1145 and granted the petitions for review Nos. 08-1144 and 12-1295. The court vacated the Gasification Exclusion Rule.View "Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a portion of a 1998 EPA rule creating a "Comparable Fuels Exclusion" from regulation under section 3004(q) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6924(q). The court concluded that Environmental Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating standing on behalf of their members. The court concluded that the Exclusion is inconsistent with the plain language of section 6924(q), which requires that EPA establish standards applicable to all fuel derived hazardous waste. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated the Exclusion. However, Environmental Technology Council lacked a cause of action and the court denied its petition for review. View "NRDC and Sierra Club v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

The district court denied attorney-client privilege protection regarding confidential employee communications made during KBR's internal investigation led by company lawyers. The court concluded that the district court's privilege ruling was legally erroneous and irreconcilable with Upjohn Co v. United States. Accordingly, the court granted KBR's petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated the district court's document protection order.View "In re: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the FAA's revocation of his Designated Pilot Examiner appointment based on deficiencies in his performance. Petitioner argued that the FAA failed to follow its own procedures and that one of his FAA evaluators labored under a conflict of interest. The court concluded that plaintiff's termination letter substantially complied with an FAA order and, moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged deficiencies in the specificity of his termination letter. Further, plaintiff failed to show that any improper conflict of interest affected the decision to terminate his appointment. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Sheble, III v. Huerta, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of retired U.S. Airways pilots, filed a class action seeking interest for the period of delay in the payment of their retirement benefits. The district court refused to certify the class. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the class members were not required to exhaust internal remedies before bringing their claims in court because they sought enforcement of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., substantive guarantees rather than contractual rights. View "Stephens, et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Sorenson is a purveyor of telephones for the hearing-impaired that have words scrolling on a screen during a call. Sorenson's technology uses the Internet to transmit and receive both the call itself and the derived captions (IP CTS). Sorenson gives its phones out for free, with the captioning feature turned on. On appeal, Sorenson challenged the FCC's promulgation of rules regarding IP CTS under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court concluded that the FCC's rule requiring all new users to register and self-certify their hearing loss, but only if the provider sold the IP CTS equipment for $75 or more, was arbitrary and capricious because the FCC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action. Further, the FCC's requirement that IP CTS phones "have a default setting of captions off, so that all IP CTS users must affirmatively turn on captioning," was unsupported by the evidence and, rather, contradicted by it. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review.View "Sorenson Communications Inc., et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

CSX challenged the Board's issuance of a decision modifying its procedures for rate reasonableness cases. The court rejected CSX's argument that the Board violated its statutory mandate when it made simplified procedures available for all cases. The court concluded that the Board adequately explained its adoption of a new revenue-allocation methodology as well as its rationale for adopting a new interest rate for reparations. However, the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in raising the relief cap for its most simplified rate reasonableness procedure. It appears that the Board double-counted costs in producing its estimate without explanation. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Board to address this issue. View "CSX Transp., Inc., et al. v. STB, et al." on Justia Law

After taxpayers failed to pay federal income taxes for the 2007 tax year, the IRS assessed the unpaid amount plus penalties and interest, and then attempted to collect them from taxpayers by means of a levy on the couple's home. Taxpayers unsuccessfully challenged the proposed levy in the Tax Court. On appeal, taxpayers contend that the Tax Court judge may have been biased in favor of the IRS in a manner that infringed the constitutional separation of powers. The court held that 26 U.S.C. 7443(f) did not infringe the constitutional separation of powers. Even if the prospect of "interbranch" removal of a Tax Court judge would raise a constitutional concern in theory, there is no cause for concern in fact: the Tax Court exercises Executive authority as part of the Executive Branch. Presidential removal of a Tax Court judge thus would constitute an intra-branch removal. The court rejected taxpayers' remaining claims and affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Kuretski, et al. v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

The Union petitioned for review of the FLRA's decision finding, inter alia, that the IRS did not commit an unfair labor practice when Union representatives were excluded from "suitability" interviews of "covered" IRS personnel conducted by OPM investigators. Determining that it had jurisdiction to decide the Union's petition for review, the court concluded that the Authority reasonably construed the "representative of the agency" language in 5 U.S.C. 7114(a)(2)(B) to support a function and control analysis in determining its applicability vel non, and that the Authority's application of its interpretation to OPM-conducted suitability interviews of covered IRS personnel was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Natl' Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA" on Justia Law