In Dailey v. Park, the parties disputed their rights under a settlement agreement arising from a condominium repurchase, with each side claiming the other breached by failing to complete the closing as scheduled. The plaintiff moved to enforce the settlement agreement in his favor, while the defendants opposed and sought related protective orders. The court concluded it lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement because it had not formally approved the agreement or issued any merits ruling that would allow enforcement, and the parties' factual and legal disputes were too complex for summary resolution. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to enforce, denied the defendants' motion for protective order reinstatement, denied the plaintiff's motion to strike, and held the case in abeyance pending resolution of the settlement controversy elsewhere.
This case involved challenges by taxpayers to the IRS's Notice 2006-50, which established a one-time refund process for a 3% federal excise tax on long-distance telephone calls collected between 2003 and 2006 that multiple courts had ruled illegal. After prior dismissal and remand from the D.C. Circuit, which held the Notice was reviewable final agency action under the APA and that plaintiffs need not exhaust remedies for their procedural claims, the district court addressed the scope of the mandate. The parties agreed the Circuit's ruling indicated the IRS violated the APA by failing to follow notice-and-comment procedures when issuing the Notice. The court granted the defendant's motion, determined a procedural APA violation had occurred, prospectively vacated the Notice as the appropriate remedy, and remanded the matter to the IRS for further action.
The case involved plaintiffs, including a UK Member of Parliament, a parliamentary group focused on extraordinary rendition, and a US attorney, who submitted FOIA requests to multiple US agencies for documents on the US extraordinary rendition program and related activities. Several agencies, including the CIA, FBI, and others, denied the requests under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(E), which prohibits disclosures to foreign government entities or their representatives. The plaintiffs sued, claiming the exception did not apply because they were not such entities or representatives. The court granted the defendants' partial motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that the MP and group are subdivisions or representatives of the UK Parliament, a foreign government entity, and the attorney acts on their behalf, so the statutory bar applies.
This case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking disgorgement of approximately $3 million in frozen funds held by relief defendant JSC Parex Bank in connection with a pump-and-dump securities fraud scheme carried out by four unknown traders through Parex's U.S. brokerage account. The court had previously entered default judgment against the traders and ordered them to pay restitution of $1,835,347.93. The SEC moved for disgorgement of the frozen omnibus account funds, while Parex moved for summary judgment to unfreeze them or, alternatively, to release amounts exceeding the restitution order. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions, ordering disgorgement only of $159,169.55 proven to be in a defendant's current account that was causally tied to the illegal trading, but denying disgorgement of the remaining funds in the omnibus account due to insufficient evidence of a causal connection to the wrongdoing and ordering the excess $1,164,652.07 unfrozen.
This case involved a dispute over whether a contract between Quantum Entertainment Limited and a Native American tribe required approval from the Department of the Interior under 25 U.S.C. § 81. The plaintiff challenged an administrative decision by the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Interior Board of Indian Appeals, which applied the pre-2000 version of the statute and found the agreement invalid without such approval. After an initial remand, the Board issued a revised 2010 opinion concluding that the amended statute could not apply retroactively because it would impose new contractual obligations on completed transactions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The case involves consolidated lawsuits by non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains and endorsing organizations alleging that the Navy's chaplaincy program discriminates against them on the basis of religion through illegal quotas and preferences in decisions on promotion, accession, retention, and separation. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend prior interlocutory judgments or certify them for appeal under Rule 54(b), while the defendants moved for partial dismissal of claims. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions to alter or amend the January 2002 and August 2000 judgments as well as their requests for certification, and granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for partial dismissal, including rejecting attempts to raise unpled hostile work environment claims under Title VII.