Stanley S. Harris

This case involves a motion for recusal filed by defendant Paul Bilzerian in a long-running Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action stemming from his prior criminal convictions for securities violations. The court denied the motion as both meritless and moot after the case had already been reassigned to another judge. The judge explained that his senior status and planned retirement had led him to retain the case temporarily to avoid disruption, particularly given Bilzerian's ongoing civil contempt incarceration, and that he had taken steps such as facilitating a smooth transfer and making recommendations favorable to Bilzerian regarding his detention conditions. The opinion rejected any claim of bias, noting that the judge's actions demonstrated fairness and that a random reassignment earlier would have harmed all parties by delaying proceedings.

procedure

This case involves a remand from the D.C. Circuit directing the district court to determine whether defense counsel specifically objected during an off-the-record instructions conference to the use of "strong belief" (rather than "firmly convinced") in the reasonable doubt jury instruction given at trial. The district court found, based on its clear recollection of events and review of the record in this and related cases, that counsel made only a general request for the Redbook instruction without stating a distinct objection or grounds regarding the "strong belief" phrasing as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30. The opinion also recounts the judge's adoption of the Federal Judicial Center Pattern Instructions for reasonable doubt, notes outcomes in similar appeals (three affirmances and four reversals), and corrects certain factual representations in prior appellate decisions about objections made in informal conferences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a long-running class action lawsuit by former residents of Forest Haven against the District of Columbia regarding compliance with court orders for habilitation services, protection from harm, and related supports for individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. After the district court imposed contempt fines for noncompliance and the Court of Appeals reversed most of those fines, the parties negotiated a 2001 Plan for Compliance and Conclusion, a Consent Order, and a Settlement Agreement. These documents establish measurable outcome standards, tasks with timelines, quality assurance mechanisms, budget processes, and an independent Quality Trust for ongoing monitoring and advocacy. The court approves the agreements as a blueprint for achieving compliance, developing post-termination safeguards, and enabling phased withdrawal of judicial oversight.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved a law firm and its partners who had a group life insurance policy with North American Life Assurance Company that was transferred to Canada Life following a merger; plaintiffs alleged that Canada Life made misrepresentations about maintaining the same coverage terms, including automatic renewal and retiree eligibility, but the new policy allowed cancellation and excluded retirees, leading to eight counts including breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation under state law. The court granted Canada Life's motion to dismiss all claims, concluding that they were preempted by ERISA as the policy constituted an employee benefit plan. The core reasoning was that ERISA broadly preempts state-law claims relating to such plans, though plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the complaint to pursue federal ERISA claims instead.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In Gowens v. Dyncorp, the plaintiff, hired by DynCorp as an aircraft mechanic in Germany under a federal contract, sued the company over denial of per diem pay (due to his wife's military status), his subsequent assignment to distant work sites, and alleged constructive discharge after his complaints. He asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and constructive discharge. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted DynCorp's motion to dismiss the complaint in full. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction because all relevant events occurred in Germany with no sufficient ties to the District of Columbia under either the long-arm or general jurisdiction statutes. The court further noted that the employment was at-will under the contract, which would bar the substantive claims under D.C. law, and that the fraud allegations were insufficient.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned the Orphan Drug Act's seven-year marketing exclusivity for drugs treating rare diseases like Kaposi’s sarcoma. Baker Norton sought approval for its paclitaxel-based drug Paxene after the FDA had already approved Bristol-Myers Squibb’s similar Taxol for the same use and granted it exclusivity; the FDA denied Paxene approval because the drugs shared the same active moiety under 21 C.F.R. § 316.3(b)(13)(i), even though they differed in inactive ingredients and manufacturing. Baker Norton challenged the FDA’s interpretation of “drug” in 21 U.S.C. § 360cc(a) as exceeding statutory authority. The court granted summary judgment to the FDA and BMS, holding that the term “drug” is ambiguous and that the agency’s regulation—treating drugs as the same unless clinically superior—is a permissible construction entitled to deference.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves the American Chiropractic Association's challenge to Medicare regulations governing coverage for manual spinal manipulations, including requirements for physician referrals and payments to managed care organizations. The court addressed whether 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) barred federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for Counts II-V of the complaint, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care. The court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss Count IV, finding that enrollees could pursue administrative review of the referral requirement and thus § 405(h) applied. It denied the motion as to Counts II, III, and V, concluding that neither enrollees nor chiropractors had sufficient incentive or ability to bring those claims through administrative channels, which would result in no judicial review at all. The core reasoning turned on whether requiring administrative exhaustion would effectively preclude review, allowing direct § 1331 jurisdiction for the remaining counts.

healthcareprocedure

The case involves the SEC's efforts to enforce 1993 disgorgement orders requiring defendant Bilzerian to pay roughly $62 million in profits and interest from securities fraud liability. After finding Bilzerian in civil contempt for noncompliance, the court set temporary purgation conditions including monthly payments and a detailed accounting of assets held through various entities. Bilzerian made partial payments and submissions but failed to provide a complete accounting or demonstrate inability to pay, and he later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court ruled that he had not satisfied the conditions, denied his motion to modify the order, and directed his incarceration until compliance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission's efforts to enforce prior judgments against defendant Paul A. Bilzerian requiring him to disgorge over $62 million in unlawful profits and interest from securities law violations. After finding Bilzerian in contempt of those 1993 judgments, the court exercised its equitable authority under the federal securities laws and related procedural rules to appoint a receiver. The court decided to appoint Deborah R. Meshulam as receiver with broad powers to identify, control, and liquidate Bilzerian's assets, including those held through related entities and trusts, in order to satisfy the disgorgement orders. The core reasoning was that such an appointment was necessary and appropriate to prevent dissipation of assets and to carry out the judgments, with the receiver granted exclusive control and various protections from liability.

business & regulatory

In Summers v. Howard University, security officers employed by the university's campus police department sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and, alternatively, under their collective bargaining agreement, seeking overtime pay for half-hour meal breaks during which they faced activity restrictions, as well as for pre- and post-shift work, and alleging failure to provide required breaks. The district court granted in part and denied in part the university's motion to dismiss or for partial summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. It treated the late-filed motion to dismiss contract claims as one for judgment on the pleadings and held that the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures required those breach-of-contract claims to be arbitrated first. The FLSA claims were allowed to proceed because the court found genuine issues of material fact on whether the meal breaks constituted compensable work under the predominant-benefit test, precluding summary judgment.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a plaintiff sued City Lights School, Inc., a private school for at-risk youth, alleging negligent supervision after he was assaulted and injured by five unsupervised City Lights students during a field trip to the National Zoo. The school moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing it owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the unforeseeable violence. The court denied the motion, holding that a duty could exist under District of Columbia common law or Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319 if the harm was foreseeable based on the students' known propensities, and that the complaint's allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal at this stage without needing to resolve factual issues of foreseeability and knowledge. The decision emphasized that whether a school owes a duty to third parties during field trips is a question of law best addressed after further development of the facts.

torts & liability

The case concerned Public Citizen's challenge to multiple federal agencies' compliance with FOIA and PRA requirements to prepare public indexes and descriptions of major information systems and to maintain current inventories of information resources. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's cross-motions on the FOIA and PRA claims, and denied other related motions as moot. The reasoning centered on interpreting the statutory obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552(g) and 44 U.S.C. § 3506(b)(4), including the definition of major information systems from OMB Circular A-130, the scope of inventories required (all systems versus only major ones), and assessments of each agency's specific indexing and inventory practices.

federal powerprocedure

In United States v. Cook, the petitioner moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 1994 conviction and 240-month sentence for unlawful possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel on issues such as witness vouching, expert testimony, crack cocaine sentencing, and alleged perjured testimony; he also sought a downward departure for post-offense rehabilitation. The district court granted the petitioner's procedural motions to amend the § 2255 filing and to consider the rehabilitation claim alongside it. The court denied the § 2255 motion and the departure request without a hearing. It reasoned that the petitioner had not shown counsel's performance was objectively deficient under Strickland v. Washington or that any errors caused prejudice, and that resentencing was not required to evaluate rehabilitation efforts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a black female former Postal Service employee who alleged race and sex discrimination under Title VII regarding her non-selection for an EAS-25 Procurement Specialist position in 1989, as well as retaliation claims related to a reduced merit evaluation in 1992 and her non-placement during a 1992 departmental restructuring following EEO complaints. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of the second amended complaint. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation for the claims, or to provide evidence that the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual, and noted that certain claims were not properly exhausted or pleaded at the administrative level.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved two hospitals challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' methodology for calculating outlier payments under the Medicare Prospective Payment System for fiscal year 1986, claiming the payments fell short of the statutory 5-6% target and that thresholds were set arbitrarily. Plaintiffs had missed the 180-day deadline to appeal their reimbursement determinations to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board and sought a good-cause extension, which was denied by the Administrator. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the denial of a good-cause extension for an untimely administrative appeal does not constitute a final reviewable agency decision under the Medicare Act. The reasoning drew on the statutory framework for expedited judicial review, the non-mandatory nature of the extension authority, and precedent from multiple courts finding such denials unreviewable.

healthcareprocedure

In United States v. Holton, petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in connection with his convictions for drug transactions. The court denied the motion, as well as requests for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. It applied the Strickland standard and found that counsel's decisions, such as not interviewing or calling a witness whose prior testimony was available, were reasonable tactical choices that did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court further concluded that even if any deficiencies existed, they did not prejudice the outcome given the substantial evidence of guilt, including recordings, corroborating testimony, and physical evidence recovered from the petitioner.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Beverly Enterprises and Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services to Department of Labor regulations implementing the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989, specifically 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.310(e)(1) and (f). These rules required health care facilities hiring foreign H-1A nurses to pay all nurses (U.S. and foreign) the higher of the facility's existing wage rate or the prevailing wage rate in the geographic area. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and struck down the regulations, holding that they exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The INRA's attestation requirements only mandated that facilities pay H-1A nurses the same wage rate paid to similarly employed nurses at the facility, without imposing a prevailing-wage floor or requiring raises for existing U.S. nurses. The court found the statutory text unambiguous, the legislative history consistent with that text, and the agency's reliance on other visa programs unpersuasive.

immigrationlabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves the United States government suing Toyota Motor Corporation and related entities for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act by selling approximately 2.2 million vehicles with onboard diagnostic systems that differed materially from those described in their certificate applications to the EPA. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the litigation, arguing primarily for primary jurisdiction referral to the EPA or abstention in favor of California proceedings. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the issues presented do not warrant deferral to administrative agencies and that the federal court is appropriate to hear the claims under the Clean Air Act.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a motion to compel compliance with a prior injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA enforcing the Tulloch Rule under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Tulloch Rule had expanded the definition of regulated "discharge of dredged material" to include incidental fallback from excavation activities like mechanized landclearing and ditching in wetlands, effectively requiring permits for nearly all such work. The court had previously invalidated the rule, holding that incidental fallback does not constitute an "addition" of a pollutant under the Act's definition of discharge, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the nationwide injunction. In this proceeding, the court denied the motion, concluding that the agencies' actions regarding specific projects and their May 1999 rule did not violate the injunction because they targeted discharges beyond mere incidental fallback or were consistent with the statutory limits. The ruling clarified that while incidental fallback remains unregulated, other discharges from excavation may still require permits if they meet the Act's criteria.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves the SEC's application to hold defendant Paul Bilzerian in civil contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders requiring him to disgorge over $62 million in profits and prejudgment interest from a securities fraud judgment, as well as to file a detailed accounting of his assets. Following Bilzerian's criminal conviction for securities fraud and the imposition of civil liability and disgorgement orders in this court, which were affirmed on appeal, he has paid nothing toward the judgment despite extensive related litigation including a bankruptcy proceeding. After a hearing and review of the record, the court found Bilzerian in contempt of the 1993 disgorgement orders, determining that he had the ability to comply but had taken steps to avoid payment such as removing himself as a beneficiary of a family trust and failing to disclose beneficial interests in assets. The court declined to hold him in contempt of the accounting order at this time but directed him to submit a more detailed accounting, while denying his motions to strike and for oral argument.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure