Dabney Langhorne Friedrich

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.

immigrationprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

procedurefederal power

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.

procedurecriminal law

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.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involves a FOIA lawsuit by the Heritage Foundation and Mike Howell seeking records from Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents, specifically transcripts and audio recordings of Biden's conversations with a biographer. After the Department of Justice initially withheld the materials under FOIA exemptions but later agreed to disclose them with redactions to the plaintiffs and the House Judiciary Committee, former President Biden moved to intervene to assert privacy interests and block the production. The court granted Biden intervention as of right to oppose disclosure to the plaintiffs under FOIA Rule 24 standards but denied intervention as to his proposed cross-claims challenging disclosure to Congress. The core reasoning was that intervenors may join existing issues in the case but cannot enlarge the proceeding by injecting new claims, such as Privacy Act or separation-of-powers challenges to congressional requests, that were not raised by the original parties.

procedurefederal power

Ty Alper, a lawyer representing a death row inmate convicted in Alabama, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI seeking records on its involvement in the criminal investigation. The FBI initially withheld hundreds of pages under multiple exemptions, including 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). On Alper's renewed motion for summary judgment and partial reconsideration, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, directing the FBI to reexamine documents withheld under Exemption 5 for reasonably segregable non-privileged information such as strategic advice and to provide more detailed justification, while declining to order further action on three documents Alper already possessed through other means. The decision applied FOIA's standards requiring agencies to justify withholdings and release segregable material, along with Rule 54(b) standards for reconsidering interlocutory orders.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Al-Sammarraie v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, a pro se plaintiff sought to enforce rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by requesting official acknowledgment of his victim status, appointment of a coordinator, and other measures in connection with an FBI investigation. The FBI moved to dismiss the case. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that venue was improper in the District of Columbia because the plaintiff failed to allege that a criminal prosecution was pending there or that the crime occurred in the district, as required by the CVRA's specific venue provision. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments based on his residence or the agency's location, noting that the CVRA's venue rules take precedence over general civil venue statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

Karen Sieger, a Caucasian IT specialist at ICE within DHS, sued the agency under Title VII alleging that her supervisor, Stephanie Hampton, discriminated against her on the basis of race by favoring African American colleague Kanika Cooper in selections for Section Chief, Acting Unit Chief, and Unit Chief positions, while also creating a hostile work environment and retaliating after Sieger reported the issues. The district court granted in part and denied in part the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the discrimination claim tied to the Section Chief position, the hostile work environment claim, and the retaliation claim, but allowed the discrimination claims concerning the Acting Unit Chief and Unit Chief positions to proceed. The court reasoned that some claims failed for lack of exhaustion, failure to allege sufficiently adverse actions, or absence of a causal connection to protected activity, while others stated plausible Title VII violations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Roy Arnold filed a pro se action in D.C. Superior Court seeking to quiet title to real property in the District of Columbia, which defendants removed to federal court. The court had previously ordered Arnold to explain why the suit should not be dismissed as duplicative of an earlier, pending action he had brought against the same defendants seeking substantially the same relief. Arnold acknowledged the cases involved overlapping claims and were filed as a protective measure, but argued that an amended complaint with new claims distinguished this action. The court rejected that argument, finding the claims and parties virtually identical, and dismissed Arnold's claims without prejudice under the rule prohibiting parties from maintaining two separate actions on the same subject matter in the same court against the same defendants. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defendants' state-law counterclaims.

propertyprocedure

Ikia Truesdale, an African American woman employed as a police officer by the District of Columbia, sued her employer alleging discrimination based on race, color, and sex, as well as retaliation for engaging in protected activity such as filing an EEO complaint. The claims centered on multiple workplace investigations, including incidents involving alleged policy violations in 2019, a Supervisory Support Program notification, and delays in approving outside employment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Truesdale failed to present evidence showing the District's actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation, that the employer provided legitimate non-discriminatory explanations for the investigations and decisions, and that temporal proximity alone was insufficient to establish causation or pretext.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Sierra Club sued its former employee Ben Palkowski for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violating California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act after he sent numerous confidential files—including banking records and employee data such as social security numbers and salaries—from his work email to his personal account without permission. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Sierra Club’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no genuine factual dispute that Palkowski’s actions violated the company’s confidentiality policy, which he had agreed to as a condition of employment. The court’s core reasoning was that the undisputed evidence showed the unauthorized transfers occurred while Palkowski was on notice of potential discipline, that he lacked any permission or justification for sending the files, and that he retained and planned to use the information in ways harmful to Sierra Club. The court therefore entered a permanent injunction ordering Palkowski to cease using the information, return all copies, and destroy any remaining files.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, and Daniel Hodges, a Metropolitan Police Department officer, sued to compel the Architect of the Capitol to install a plaque honoring officers who responded to the January 6, 2021, Capitol events, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022. Brian Mock and Cindy Lou Young, who were convicted for their actions on January 6 and later pardoned, moved to intervene, seeking a more inclusive memorial that would also recognize January 6 defendants and raising equal protection claims. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied both motions to intervene. The court reasoned that the intervenors lacked any legally protectable interest under the statute or Constitution that would be affected by the plaque, and that permissive intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original plaintiffs' claims.

procedurecivil rightscriminal law

In Monbo v. Fogle, plaintiff Deafueh Monbo, who co-owns the copyright and common-law trademark rights to a logo for the 12 O’Clock Boyz dirt-bike film and related merchandise, sued Timothy Fogle for copyright and trademark infringement over his similar Wheels Up Guns Down logo used on a website and social media. Fogle, a Florida resident, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion and dismissed the claims without prejudice, holding that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction because Fogle had no continuous and systematic contacts with the District and Monbo presented no evidence that he sold or advertised goods there. The court found that Monbo’s allegations about an Amazon purchase did not connect Fogle to any transactions in D.C. and that his website and Facebook activities did not satisfy the requirements for specific jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Jason Leopold and Buzzfeed sued the CIA under FOIA for records of the agency's Inspector General investigations into alleged or sustained misconduct by personnel during 2020 and 2021. The district court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, upholding most of the CIA's withholdings while directing additional review or release of limited material from one document. The court reasoned that the CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1, 3, 6, and 7 to protect classified information, national security sources, personal privacy, and law enforcement records, that the search was adequate, and that all reasonably segregable information had been disclosed except possibly in the one disputed report.

federal powerprocedure

Amir Clayton Powell, an African American former President and CEO of the National Institute of Building Sciences, sued his ex-employer alleging race discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act and unpaid wages and severance under the D.C. Wage Payment Collection Law after his termination. Powell's interim security clearance was withdrawn, leading the Board to end his at-will employment, which had been conditioned on obtaining such clearance; he received final wages but no severance. The district court granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on both remaining counts, finding no genuine dispute of material fact that Powell was treated differently from a white comparator or that he was entitled to additional payments. The court rejected Powell's request for further discovery under Rule 56(d) as unsupported and denied any triable issues on disparate treatment or wage claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

George Banker sued the Secretary of the Army under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging race and age discrimination in hiring decisions for Race Director and Deputy Race Director positions. The district court previously granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case, finding that Banker had conceded untimely exhaustion of claims regarding one position and failed to allege facts showing discriminatory pretext regarding the other. Banker then moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, arguing clear error and manifest injustice due to statutes of limitations, and under Rule 15 to file a second amended complaint. The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, holding that Banker had not shown new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that could not have been avoided earlier, and dismissed the Rule 15 motion as moot because the judgment had not been reopened.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Shyam Nalwade sued the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that USCIS unlawfully revoked his H-1B cap-exempt status after determining that his employer had committed fraud in the visa registration and petition process. The district court granted DHS's motion to dismiss the APA claim. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(3) requires revocation of cap-exempt status whenever a petition is revoked due to fraud, regardless of whether the fraud was committed by the alien beneficiary or the employer, based on the statute's plain text, its context within the INA, and its contrast with the neighboring inadmissibility provision in § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) that applies only to the alien's own misconduct.

immigration

Antoine Tillmon, a bus operator for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), sued his employer after taking FMLA leave for a mental-health condition and alleging a pattern of adverse administrative actions, including administrative leave and termination followed by reassignment. The court had previously dismissed his First Amended Complaint, finding sovereign immunity barred his ADA and FMLA self-care claims and that he failed to state a family-care FMLA claim. Tillmon then moved for leave to file a Proposed Second Amended Complaint introducing new legal theories. The court granted the motion in part, permitting amendment of certain claims, but denied it in part as to the proposed § 1983 claim alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The denial rested on futility because WMATA is not a "person" subject to suit under § 1983, while the court found no undue delay or other factors barring the remaining amendments under Rule 15.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure