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

The USPS sought review of three orders of the Commission implementing the court's mandate in GameFly, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission (GameFly I). In GameFly I, the Commission found that USPS violated the proscription of undue or unreasonable discrimination in 39 U.S.C. 403(c) when it refused to provide to GameFly the same special manual processing service for first class round-trip letter DVD mailers that USPS provided to Netflix. The court upheld the Commission's finding of discrimination but rejected the remedy it adopted - reducing the DVD flat service rate - because it left in place unjustified residual discrimination in that GameFly was still forced to pay a higher rate than Netflix paid to obtain comparable DVD protection. The court remanded for the district court to justify the residual discrimination or eliminate it entirely. On remand, the Commission adopted a remedy which equalizes the cost of first class letter and flat DVD rates, enabling GameFly to use either service at the same cost. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was consistent with the court's decision in GameFly I and with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198. Accordingly, the court denied USPS's petition for review. View "USPS v. Postal Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The Board moved to transfer this petition for review of one of its orders to the Ninth Circuit where another petition for review of the same order has been filed. Although the Board conceded that it received the court-and-date-stamped copy of Remington's petition within 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(1)'s ten-day time limit, it argued that it did not receive the copy from the persons instituting the proceedings. Because every petitioner seeking review of a Board order must comply with section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(f), section 2112(a) could serve its separate notice function only if petitioners wishing to take advantage of that section's forum selection procedure comply with it separately. Requiring petitioners to comply personally with section 2112(a) alerted the agency that the petitioner cared about its chosen forum and, as the Board explained, imposed the burden of compliance on the party seeking to benefit from section 2112(a). Therefore, the court must transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit. The court granted the motion to transfer. View "Remington Lodging & Hospitality v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Fisher-Cal filed suit alleging that the Air Force violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., when the Air Force opted not to renew a contract for multimedia services with Fisher-Cal and decided to in-source the services. On appeal, Fisher-Cal challenged the district court's appeal of its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court accepted the reasoning of the Federal Circuit in Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, which held that lawsuits involving decisions whether to in-source or contract fell within the jurisdiction of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491. Accordingly, Fisher-Cal's challenge to the Air Force's decision to in-source was governed by the Tucker Act and therefore the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fisher-Cal Indus., Inc. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for bank and wire fraud. The court rejected defendant's challenges to his conviction, his aggravating role enhancement, and his restitution obligation. However, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the government conceded that the district court's retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause where the district court sentenced defendant under the 2010 Guidelines for crimes he committed years earlier. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

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