Fhazz LLC and Asad Ali sued USCIS officials in the District of Columbia to challenge the denial of their I-129 petition for E-2 nonimmigrant visa status, which USCIS rejected as untimely after Ali's prior B-2 visa expired and following alleged fraud in an initial filing attempt. The defendants moved to transfer venue and dismiss the case. The court granted the motion to transfer to the Western District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiffs reside in that district, the petition's impact would be felt most strongly there, the California Service Center processed the petition, and both private and public interest factors—including convenience and avoidance of manufactured venue in D.C.—supported transfer over keeping the case in the District of Columbia.
Gwendolyn White sued the District of Columbia to recover attorneys’ fees and costs she incurred in prevailing on administrative claims against DC Public Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After previously granting her motion for fees in part and directing supplemental briefing on fees-on-fees, the court accepted White’s inflation-adjusted invoices in full and ordered the District to pay the requested amounts. The District’s arguments for reducing the fees-on-fees award based on limited success were deemed waived in part, but the court addressed them and found the request reasonable because the underlying hours were largely accepted, the same hourly rates applied, and the District’s conduct had prolonged the litigation. The court declined to exercise discretion to impose across-the-board reductions and rejected the District’s separate Rule 68 offer-of-judgment argument as moot or invalid.
Shinok Park, proceeding pro se, sued Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union over two HELOC loans secured by her residence and condominium, alleging that the Credit Union wrongfully accelerated the loans, misapplied payments, failed to properly process loss mitigation applications, and initiated foreclosure proceedings in violation of RESPA regulations, TILA, D.C. law, and contract terms. The court considered the Credit Union's motion to dismiss the amended complaint along with Park's related motions. It granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the federal claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) because the allegations did not show violations of the cited statutes or regulations, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims due to judicial economy and the early stage of the case. The court also denied Park's motion to strike and dismissed her motion for judicial notice as moot.
The Heritage Foundation and Mike Howell sued the Department of Justice under FOIA to obtain transcripts and audio recordings from Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents, specifically including Biden's interviews with his biographer. After initially withholding the materials under multiple exemptions, the Department reversed course and planned to release them with redactions to the plaintiffs and Congress. Biden intervened and moved for a preliminary injunction to block disclosure to the plaintiffs, claiming the release would violate the APA. The court denied the motion, finding that while Biden faced some irreparable harm to his privacy interests, he had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that the equities and public interest favored an injunction over FOIA's policy of broad disclosure.
This case concerns a Freedom of Information Act request by the Heritage Foundation for records from Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation of President Biden, specifically the Zwonitzer materials. After the district court denied Biden's motion for a preliminary injunction to block disclosure by the Department of Justice, Biden sought an emergency injunction pending appeal. The court granted a three-week injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), finding that the merits issues are difficult and weighty, disclosure would risk irreparable harm to Biden's privacy and reputation, the plaintiffs lack an immediate need for the materials, and immediate release would likely moot Biden's appeal rights. The court relied on precedent allowing stays in FOIA cases to preserve appellate review when harms are irreparable and the need for disclosure is not urgent.
This case involves charges against Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi for his alleged role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 259 people on board and 11 on the ground. The defendant moved to dismiss the three-count indictment for lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relevant U.S. criminal statutes do not apply to conduct occurring abroad. The court denied the motion as to Counts I and II, which charged willful destruction of an aircraft resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. §§ 32(a)(1), 32(a)(2), 34, and 2, because those provisions expressly cover aircraft used in foreign air commerce and thus overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application. The court granted the motion as to Count III, which charged malicious damage to property by explosive under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), because that statute lacks any clear indication of extraterritorial reach. The court also rejected the defendant's due process challenge based on D.C. Circuit precedent.