Peter Jo Messitte

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in an adversary proceeding where creditor Stephen Showalter sought to deny debtor Stephen Todd Stevens a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), alleging that Stevens had concealed or transferred assets to hinder creditors within a year before filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court denied the discharge after trial, finding that Stevens had taken steps to remove property from creditors' reach. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that Stevens waived any challenge to the complaint's pleading sufficiency under Twombly and Iqbal by filing an untimely Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after answering and proceeding through discovery and trial without renewing the objection.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was an appeal and cross-appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision following a nine-day trial in the USGen New England, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding, concerning TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.'s claim for damages arising from USGen's breach of a contract for natural gas pipeline capacity on TransCanada's Mainline system. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision in full, upholding its findings on the amount of damages, the adequacy of TransCanada's mitigation efforts through re-auctioning capacity and other means, and the treatment of the claim under the Bankruptcy Code. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy court's factual determinations were supported by the record, including evidence that TransCanada met its duty of prudence under Canadian regulatory requirements, that certain bids did not qualify as mitigation, and that discounting the claim to present value was not required.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Small Business Administration (SBA) filing a complaint against ECC Partners, L.P., an SBA-licensed Small Business Investment Company, alleging violations of capital requirements under the Small Business Investment Act and related regulations after the company developed a capital impairment condition exceeding permitted levels. The SBA sought and obtained a consent order appointing it as receiver to manage and liquidate the company's assets. The receiver later submitted a recommended disposition of claims, which the court approved, leading ECentury Capital Corporation, the former management company, to file an opposition. Following oral argument, the court confirmed the receiver's recommended disposition of claims and denied ECentury's motion, enforcing the regulatory restrictions and the terms of the consent order regarding asset handling and claim payments.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerned the validity of an arbitration award resolving a collective bargaining impasse between the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Local 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union over wages and pensions for the 2008-2012 period. After an initial round of summary judgment motions, the court remanded the matter to the arbitration board for a supplemental opinion demonstrating compliance with the National Capital Area Interest Arbitration Standards Act, which requires consideration of specific factors including the public welfare and the financial ability of participating jurisdictions. Upon review of the board's Second Supplemental Opinion and the full record, the court denied WMATA's renewed motion for summary judgment and to disqualify board members, granted the Union's motion to confirm the award, and confirmed the remaining portions of the arbitration decision. The core reasoning was that the board had adequately addressed the statutory factors as required by the Act and prior court guidance, leaving no basis to vacate the award under the limited standards for reviewing labor arbitration decisions.

labor & employment

The case involved claims by the mother and girlfriend of Gregory Boggs, Jr., who was fatally shot by Prince George's County police officer Jordan Swonger in 2006 while Swonger responded to reports of an assault. Plaintiffs brought multiple counts against the officer, including excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, survival act, and violations of the Maryland Constitution. After a mistrial due to a hung jury, the court granted the officer's renewed motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts. The court reasoned that the officer's single shot was objectively reasonable because he reasonably perceived an imminent threat when Boggs, while restraining the victim, suddenly reached behind his back for what appeared to be a weapon, justifying the use of deadly force under the circumstances.

civil rightstorts & liability

Steven Syrja sued his former employer Westat, Inc., alleging violations of the FLSA and other laws, and moved for conditional class certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of current and former field interviewers denied overtime pay for hours over 40 in a workweek. The court denied the motion for conditional class certification. The decision rested on findings that field interviewers largely set their own schedules, received varying work assignments depending on location and manager preferences, and were responsible for reporting their own hours, with no evidence of a company-wide policy or knowledge by higher management of uncompensated overtime. These factors meant that individualized inquiries would predominate over common questions, rendering a collective action inappropriate.

labor & employmentprocedure

Paul Zell sued the U.S. Air Force and contractor THS alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and RFRA after his employment as a chiropractor at a military medical center was terminated for refusing a required Tdap vaccination on religious grounds. The court had previously denied dismissal of the RFRA claim and now addressed the Title VII claims, which the federal defendants sought to dismiss for failure to timely initiate an administrative complaint. After supplemental briefing on equitable estoppel, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII claims, finding that the government's failure to direct Zell to the Air Force EEO Office or EEOC process could support estoppel to excuse the filing deadline.

civil rightsreligious libertyprocedurefederal power

In Hylind v. Xerox Corporation, plaintiff Eileen Hylind prevailed at trial on claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, receiving a jury award of compensatory damages capped at the statutory maximum of $300,000. The court addressed post-trial motions, including Hylind's requests for economic damages such as back pay and front pay due to alleged permanent disability from migraines caused by Xerox's conduct, injunctive relief to prevent future retaliation and discrimination, and other forms of relief, as well as Xerox's motion to strike certain exhibits. The court granted Hylind's motion for economic damages in part and denied it in part, denied the motion for injunctive relief and all other motions, and rendered Xerox's motion moot. In calculating the partial back pay award, the court applied Title VII's goal of restoring plaintiffs to their pre-discrimination position by determining an eight-year period of disability from 1995 to 2003, adjusting for salary rates, offsetting disability benefits received, and adding prejudgment and postjudgment interest, while rejecting claims of permanent disability or additional equitable remedies.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Farid Sayyed suing the law firm Wolpoff & Abramson (W&A) for multiple alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) arising from interrogatories and statements made in a state court debt collection action on behalf of Discover Bank. The claims included failures to properly identify communications, false statements about trial dates and response requirements, misrepresentations of debt amounts and attorney fees, and related professional conduct issues. The district court granted W&A's motion for summary judgment and denied Sayyed's cross-motion, finding no FDCPA violations. The core reasoning centered on the fact that the communications were directed to Sayyed's counsel rather than an unsophisticated consumer, the applicability of pleading exemptions under the statute, and the absence of material falsehoods in the debt-related statements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla, 72 Iraqi citizens formerly detained at U.S. military prisons in Iraq sued military contractor L-3 Services and its translator Adel Nakhla, alleging they were subjected to torture, cruel treatment, war crimes, assault, sexual abuse, and emotional distress. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute and state law, asserting that the defendants' actions violated international and domestic law. Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including immunity under the laws of war, derivative sovereign immunity, government contractor immunity, non-justiciable political questions, and lack of cognizable claims. The court denied the motions to dismiss in full, reasoning that the alleged conduct violated the laws of nations and was not shielded by immunity doctrines at the pleading stage, that the claims did not present political questions, and that sufficient facts supported conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting allegations while deferring certain Iraqi-law issues for discovery.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Higgs v. United States, Dustin Higgs, who had been convicted by a jury of kidnapping and murdering three women and sentenced to death, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (or alternatively § 2241) asserting twenty-five claims of error after his direct appeals and related motions were denied by the Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court. The district court addressed the motion and an accompanying discovery request, examining issues including actual innocence claims, Brady material, ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions on sentencing options, and evidentiary rulings from the trial and penalty phases. The court denied relief, applying precedents such as Herrera v. Collins for innocence claims and noting that prior appellate decisions had resolved many issues, while emphasizing the extraordinarily high bar for post-conviction relief and the absence of newly discovered evidence meeting materiality standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an ERISA action by the Plasterers' Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan against former fiduciaries, including trustees Lertora and Pepper and administrator Perry, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in failing to review or diversify the plan's investments over seven years after adopting a conservative strategy limited to Treasury bills and certificates of deposit. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed Perry and found Lertora and Pepper liable, awarding the plan $432,986.70 in damages based on their gross indifference to investment alternatives. On the subsequent motion for attorney fees and expenses under ERISA § 502(g)(1), the court applied the five-factor test from Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. and granted the motion in part, awarding $337,935.01 in fees after finding sufficient culpability, ability to pay via insurance, and other factors favoring recovery, while denying soft costs like electronic research and photocopies but allowing hard expenses such as filing fees, transcripts, and expert fees totaling $20,014.47.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Montgomery County from a Bankruptcy Court order confirming Barwood's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, which proposed transferring up to 250 Fleet PVLs (taxi licenses) to individual drivers to satisfy creditors. The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court, holding that § 1123(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt MCC § 53-204(d), which limits transfers of Fleet PVLs to individuals to maintain an 80/20 fleet-to-individual ratio. The core reasoning was that the County Code provision is a valid exercise of police power grounded in public health, safety, and welfare, as the fleet-based system enables better oversight of vehicles, accident reporting, and services for disabled riders, and federal bankruptcy law does not override such non-preempted local regulations.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Steven Kanai, a former cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board denied his application for discharge as a conscientious objector by a 3-2 vote. The case arose after Kanai submitted a resignation request citing incompatibility with military culture and values, followed by a formal CO application supported by letters and an interview, which faced negative recommendations from superiors and a chaplain. The district court granted the writ, holding that there was no basis in fact for the denial because the board's decision rested on improper considerations, inconsistencies in the record, and lacked objective support for questioning the sincerity of Kanai's beliefs. The court further noted procedural irregularities and bias in the evaluation process but determined that remand would be futile given the absence of any valid ground for denial.

religious libertycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Peter James, a 2008 candidate for U.S. Congress, sued WMATA after its employees prevented him from displaying campaign signs, distributing flyers, and speaking to commuters in and around Metro stations, claiming violations of his free speech and association rights under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Bill of Rights. WMATA defended its actions under its Use Regulation, which limits free speech activities to above-ground areas at least 15 feet from entrances and prohibits signs larger than 18x18 inches or any affixing of materials. The court granted WMATA's motion to dismiss, or alternatively summary judgment, holding that the regulation is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied because Metro stations are non-public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are permitted to ensure safety and efficient transit. The court further found that WMATA's actions were consistent with the regulation and that any state constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity.

free speechelectionscivil rights

The case involves two Peruvian plaintiffs suing a former Peruvian army lieutenant under the Torture Victim Protection Act and Alien Tort Statute for his alleged involvement in the 1985 Accomarca Massacre, including extrajudicial killings, torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during Peru's conflict with Shining Path rebels. The defendant moved to dismiss on eight grounds, including lack of jurisdiction after his deportation, statute of limitations, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act immunity, failure to exhaust remedies in Peru, political question doctrine, act of state doctrine, failure to state a claim, and lack of standing. The court analyzed the exhaustion requirement in detail, explaining that the defendant bears the initial burden to show available local remedies, after which the burden shifts to plaintiffs to demonstrate those remedies were ineffective or futile, and discussed relevant Peruvian civil and criminal procedures as well as Senate report guidance on the issue.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involved plaintiffs Jeanne and Charles Biggs suing Eaglewood Mortgage and Countrywide Bank for allegedly defrauding them through a scheme involving high-risk adjustable rate mortgages that they claimed were unsuitable for their situation as an elderly retired couple. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Countrywide on the RICO claim and dismissed other counts, and now considered the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend that judgment under Rule 59(e), arguing that a recent Supreme Court decision eliminated the need to prove reliance in their RICO mail fraud claim. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the Bridge decision still requires proof of reliance when plaintiffs allege they personally relied on misrepresentations, and the plaintiffs had failed to show such detrimental reliance. The court also found no basis to alter its rulings on the other counts.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, pro se plaintiff Dr. Murray Malin sued his former employers, Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services and Siemens Medical Solutions USA, under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. § 1514A), alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting concerns about the safety of certain medical software products, including alleged false statements to the FDA and misleading marketing claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they were not covered by the Act because they were not publicly traded companies and did not qualify as agents of their German parent company Siemens AG. The court also considered Malin's motion to amend the complaint to add Siemens AG as a defendant and his motion to compel discovery. The court granted in part and denied in part the first summary judgment motion, denied the motion to amend without prejudice, denied the second summary judgment motion without prejudice, and granted in part the motion to compel. The core reasoning focused on the scope of SOX coverage for non-public subsidiaries and procedural limitations from prior administrative proceedings before OSHA and the Department of Labor.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs Jeanne and Charles Biggs suing Eaglewood Mortgage and Countrywide Bank, alleging that the defendants conspired to defraud them by inducing them through false statements to refinance their fixed-rate mortgage into risky payment-option adjustable-rate mortgages in 2004 and 2006, featuring teaser rates, negative amortization, and prepayment penalties unsuitable for an elderly retired couple. The plaintiffs brought claims under RICO, as well as for conversion, conspiracy, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and punitive damages. The court granted Countrywide's motion to dismiss in part and for summary judgment in part, while denying the plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment on their RICO and conversion claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege facts supporting the claims, there was no evidence of an agency or conspiracy relationship between Countrywide and other entities, and the loan documents provided clear disclosures that contradicted the alleged misrepresentations.

business & regulatorycriminal lawpropertytorts & liability

Katherine Lewis, a District of Columbia resident, sued Maryland-licensed physician Jeremy Waletzky for medical malpractice in federal district court in Maryland, claiming that prescriptions he issued caused her to develop a permanent neurological disorder. Waletzky moved to dismiss on the ground that Lewis had not first filed her claim with Maryland’s Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office under the Maryland Health Claims Act, a step the statute makes a condition precedent to suit. The court granted the motion without prejudice, holding that even though the alleged injury occurred in the District of Columbia, Maryland’s choice-of-law doctrine incorporates a public-policy exception that requires application of the Act’s procedural requirements to claims against Maryland health-care providers. The opinion reasoned that the Act embodies a clear, strong Maryland policy of controlling malpractice litigation costs and that failing to apply it would undermine that policy.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare