Ricardo M. Urbina

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

taxesprocedure

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.

procedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

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.

religious libertycivil rights

In Akers v. Liberty Mutual Group, the pro se plaintiff sued her homeowner’s insurer after it denied a claim for fire damage to her property, alleging breach of the insurance contract. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendant’s second motion for summary judgment. The court found uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff had breached her duties under the policy by failing to provide requested documents, submit to a full examination under oath, and accurately disclose her employment and financial information, which rendered the policy void. The court also noted the plaintiff’s repeated failure to participate in discovery or oppose the motion despite multiple warnings and extensions.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a former Foreign Service employee at the Department of State who sued Secretary Hillary Clinton, alleging race and age discrimination as well as retaliation under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after he was not selected for promotions in 2004 and 2005 or for Criminal Investigator positions in 2007, and after facing mandatory retirement and a later suspension. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that the promotion and hiring decisions were made by panels without access to information on applicants' race, age, or EEO activity, and were based on qualifications; the plaintiff failed to show that the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory explanations were pretextual. It further held that the plaintiff received favorable interim relief during his grievance process rather than adverse action, and that officials ordering his suspension lacked knowledge of his protected activity.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves an Ethiopian asylee who applied in 2004 to adjust her immigration status to permanent resident but had her application denied and then held in abeyance since 2008 by USCIS due to her reported material support for a group deemed a terrorist organization under the INA. The plaintiff sued to compel a decision on her request for reconsideration, alleging unreasonable delay under the APA. The court determined that the complaint did not sufficiently allege standing because of an inadequate showing of injury in fact and that the defendants' summary judgment motion failed to address whether USCIS must follow its own internal policy on holding such cases and whether it complied with that policy. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for summary judgment without prejudice, granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or show cause on standing, and permitted the defendants to file a renewed motion addressing the policy issue.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved environmental organizations challenging resource management plans issued by the Bureau of Land Management for millions of acres of public lands in Utah, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and federal environmental laws. Intervenor defendants from Utah moved to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The court granted the motions to transfer, concluding that both private interest factors (such as where the relevant events occurred and where evidence and witnesses are located) and public interest factors (particularly the strong local interest in resolving disputes involving specific parcels of land) weighed in favor of transfer to the district where the land is situated.

environmentprocedure

This case involves Swedish American Hospital challenging a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that required the hospital to repay several million dollars in Medicare reimbursements for training medical residents, based on the hospital's full-time equivalent (FTE) resident cap under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The court had previously ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, and the hospital sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that the hospital presented no new evidence or arguments, and that its residency program did not qualify for special consideration as a new program in a rural underserved area because Rockford, Illinois, was defined as an urban area under the applicable regulations.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing her former mortgage service providers for breach of contract related to a residential property in Washington, D.C. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to timely pay property taxes, misapplied escrow payments, charged excessive late fees, and did not provide timely tax notices, depriving her of appeal opportunities. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court determined there was no evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the defendants breached the Deed of Trust.

propertytaxesprocedure

The case involves Tarek Reed suing the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security for their role in supporting Hezbollah terrorists who abducted, tortured, and imprisoned his father, Frank Reed, for over three years in the 1980s. The plaintiff sought a default judgment against Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), as well as state and international law claims. The court granted the motion in part, awarding $4,535,000 plus interest under the FSIA, because the plaintiff demonstrated Iran's liability for the terrorist acts. However, it denied the motion in part regarding state and international law claims, reasoning that the 2008 amendments to the FSIA created an exclusive federal cause of action that preempts other avenues of relief.

criminal lawfederal powertorts & liability

This case involves trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan suing Valley Services, Inc., Bibeau Construction, and related parties under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act and ERISA to recover unpaid premiums for retiree health benefits owed to a former employee injured in 1979. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment, holding the defendants liable but finding some claims time-barred based on an initial statute of limitations calculation. On the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend that interlocutory ruling, the court granted the motion. It applied the Supreme Court's framework from Bay Area Laundry, under which each missed payment creates a separate cause of action with its own six-year limitations period, making claims for payments missed on or after February 1, 2000 timely when the complaint was filed in February 2006. The court ordered supplemental briefing on damages.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involved the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) suing GIGFX, LLC, for violating the Commodity Exchange Act and related CFTC regulations by soliciting U.S. retail customers for forex trading accounts without first registering as a retail foreign exchange dealer. The defendant was properly served but did not respond to the complaint or participate in the litigation. The court granted the CFTC's motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), awarding injunctive relief to prevent further unregistered activity and imposing a $280,000 civil monetary penalty plus post-judgment interest for the two violations. The decision rested on the defendant's default, which halted the adversary process and allowed the well-pleaded allegations to be treated as admitted, consistent with precedents allowing such remedies for CEA violations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a fee dispute between attorney Timothy Naegele and his former clients, Deanna and Raymond Albers, over unpaid legal services originating in California. After the clients initiated arbitration under California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act and the panel ruled against Naegele—who did not appear at the hearing—he filed suit in federal court and sought a temporary restraining order to stay related proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court denied the motion, holding that Naegele failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, as the financial harm alleged could be remedied through ordinary judicial processes and California law provides mechanisms like payment plans or relief for inability to pay. The decision applied the four-factor test for injunctive relief from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasizing that failure on the first two elements was dispositive.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Unique Industries, a seller of party supplies including sparklers, and 965207 Alberta Ltd., the holder of two design patents for numerical and star-shaped sparklers. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe the defendant's patents and that the patents were invalid, while the defendant asserted counterclaims for patent infringement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that genuine disputes of material fact existed on issues such as the uniformity of the designs, the number of points on the star-shaped sparklers, and the presence of a question mark-shaped sparkler, which precluded judgment as a matter of law and required resolution by a trier of fact.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a former Echocardiograph Technologist at Howard University Hospital who sued his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), alleging he was denied a promotion to a senior position because he took three months of military leave as a U.S. Air Force Reservist in 1998. The plaintiff claimed the hospital hired a less senior colleague instead after his co-worker's death, in violation of his rights related to military service. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff provided no evidence—such as affidavits or other materials—showing that the promotion decision was motivated by his military status. The core reasoning was that unsupported assertions and the timing of events (including that the leave occurred before the relevant hiring decision) failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that could allow a reasonable juror to infer discrimination under USERRA.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves consolidated lawsuits by non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains and endorsing organizations alleging that the Navy's chaplain selection board process, which uses secret votes by chaplains to decide promotions, violates the Establishment Clause by systematically favoring Catholic and liturgical Protestant chaplains. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to bar the Chief of Chaplains from presiding over boards, to eliminate secret voting, and to add safeguards against religious bias in promotion decisions. The district court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing of likelihood of success on the merits, that the injunction would not substantially harm third parties, or that it would serve the public interest. The court emphasized deference to military personnel decisions absent a strong constitutional showing and noted that the claims, while colorable, did not justify extraordinary preemptive relief.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved a pro se plaintiff who applied to become a Foreign Service Officer with the Department of State but was rejected after failing the Oral Assessment component of the hiring process at age 58. He claimed that the assessment was designed in a way that created a disparate impact on older applicants, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, after earlier claims including disparate treatment were dismissed. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the remaining disparate impact claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff provided no reliable statistical evidence demonstrating a disproportionate adverse effect on older candidates or establishing statistical significance.

labor & employmentcivil rights