Harold H. Greene

This case concerns the dissolution of the Nussbaum & Wald law partnership in Washington, D.C., where former partners disputed the existence of any agreement governing the division of profits, assets, and liabilities for 1995 and 1996, along with related claims of fraud, breach of contract, and fiduciary duty. The court conducted a bench trial on the non-jury claims and determined that the partners had never reached a comprehensive written or oral agreement on profit-sharing percentages, instead relying on ad hoc, retrospective negotiations often completed at the last minute without prejudice to future years. Applying the District of Columbia Uniform Partnership Act and Beckman v. Farmer, the court declared that each equity partner was entitled to an equal share of the firm's net profits, assets, and liabilities upon dissolution, as no contrary agreement existed. Partial summary judgment had earlier established the defendant's right to share in certain pending client fees. The ruling resolved declaratory relief issues while leaving damages and other counts for separate proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Johnson, the district court addressed a proposed plea agreement under which the defendant would waive all rights to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence imposed, while the government retained its own appeal rights. The court refused to accept the plea conditioned on this waiver. It reasoned that the waiver could not be knowing and voluntary under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because the defendant cannot foresee sentencing errors at the plea stage, that it would undermine the appellate review of sentencing decisions contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the one-sided terms created an impermissible contract of adhesion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute among former partners of the dissolved Washington, D.C. law firm Nussbaum & Wald over the equity partner status of plaintiff Jeffrey Robinson, profit-sharing arrangements for 1995 and 1996, and related claims of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, wrongful dissolution, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant Michael Nussbaum moved to dismiss Counts One, Two, and Five of the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment on all seven counts. The court denied both motions, holding that the amended complaint adequately stated claims with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) and that each count presented genuine issues of material fact, such as conflicting evidence about Robinson's partnership status and the existence of any carryover profit-sharing agreement, precluding judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the dissolution of the law firm Nussbaum & Wald, which had no written partnership agreement, and a dispute over whether defendant Michael Nussbaum is entitled to a share of profits from hourly-rate client matters that were pending at dissolution but later handled by the plaintiffs' new firm. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Nussbaum had no right to those profits, while Nussbaum counterclaimed for a share of the fees along with an accounting. The court granted partial summary judgment to Nussbaum on this issue. It reasoned that under the District of Columbia Uniform Partnership Act, pending cases constitute unfinished business of the partnership whose profits are assets to be shared among partners, a principle that applies to both hourly and contingency matters and stems from partners' fiduciary duties during wind-up.

business & regulatory

The case involved two California companies, Patriot, Inc. and America’s Trust, that assisted elderly homeowners in obtaining FHA-insured reverse mortgages and challenged a March 1997 HUD Mortgagee Letter barring lenders from using their services due to concerns over high fees. The plaintiffs argued that the letter was an invalid substantive rule issued without the notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act and that Fannie Mae breached an implied contract by refusing to repurchase affected loans. The court granted a preliminary injunction against HUD, finding a substantial likelihood that the letter constituted a binding rule with immediate effect on the plaintiffs, while dismissing the claims against Fannie Mae for lack of contractual privity and because Fannie Mae is a private entity not subject to the same regulatory obligations. The decision rested on the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions and analysis of APA exemptions for policy statements or interpretive rules.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involves former White House Travel Office employees suing aviation consultants Thomason and Martens for allegedly causing their 1993 dismissal by forwarding false accusations of bribery and kickbacks to White House officials, including Hillary Rodham Clinton. Plaintiffs asserted claims for intentional interference with employment relationship and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that District of Columbia law does not recognize a cause of action for intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship, as confirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Bible Way Church v. Beards.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a retrial on remand of claims by insurance carriers Harbor and American, as subrogees of general contractor OMNI, against subcontractor Schnabel for breach of contract and negligence arising from damage to the adjacent Sears Building caused by ground settlement during excavation at a nearby construction project. The dispute centers on whether Schnabel negligently designed and installed the sheeting and shoring system, including soldier piles and tiebacks, contrary to geotechnical recommendations and site conditions. After a bench trial, the court issued detailed findings of fact under Rule 52(a) addressing the parties' roles, the project specifications, deviations in pile embedding and tieback installation and testing, and evidence of resulting settlement. The core reasoning examines whether Schnabel verified elevations, followed design criteria for anchors in appropriate soil strata, and conducted adequate proof testing of tiebacks.

torts & liabilityproperty

In this case, a 68-year-old plaintiff alleged that her use of the denture adhesive Orafix Special, manufactured and sold by the defendants, caused her to develop a rare form of myelodysplastic syndrome due to benzene contamination, leading to claims including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and fraud. The court denied the defendants' two motions for summary judgment. It held that the plaintiff's state common-law claims were not preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA under the Supreme Court's Medtronic v. Lohr decision, and that the plaintiff's expert testimony on general and specific causation was admissible under Daubert standards, creating genuine issues of material fact.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) involved parents of disabled students who prevailed at an administrative hearing to maintain their children's placement at the Lab School of Washington after the D.C. Superintendent sought to change it. The Superintendent then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the hearing officer's order, but the case was dismissed as moot after nearly five years without a merits decision. The parents, as defendants in the civil action, moved for attorneys' fees and costs for both the administrative and court proceedings. The court granted the motion in part, awarding $82,663.44 after reviewing billing records, holding that the parents qualified as prevailing parties under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) because they obtained and preserved the relief sought at the administrative level, which materially altered the parties' legal relationship.

civil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a 1987 automobile accident in Washington, D.C., where 16-year-old Jorge Iglesias, driving without a license or permission, struck 15-year-old Tommy Athridge who was standing in the middle of a residential street waving his arms to stop the car. The court determined that Iglesias was negligent for speeding at approximately 40 mph in a 25 mph zone, failing to brake, and not attempting to swerve in time despite the plaintiff being visible from a distance. As a result, the court awarded Tommy Athridge $1.4 million for diminished earning capacity and $4 million for pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained.

torts & liability

Dr. Daniel Yesudian, a longtime Howard University employee, was terminated in 1992 after repeatedly complaining to supervisors about alleged improprieties in the Purchasing Department. He sued under the False Claims Act for unlawful retaliation and also brought claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The court granted the supervisor's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation claim, holding that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Yesudian's complaints constituted protected activity under the FCA or that the supervisor knew he was acting in furtherance of an FCA enforcement action or qui tam suit. The court reasoned that the long-standing complaints appeared to reflect a disgruntled employee rather than efforts to investigate or pursue government fraud claims, with no indication to the employer of any FCA-related intent.

labor & employment

This case involved a deaf pregnant woman who visited an obstetrician for prenatal care but was refused treatment after the doctor stated that all deaf people are high risk and directed her to a high-risk center without conducting an examination or taking her medical history. The plaintiff sued under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act, alleging discrimination based on her disability. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant violated both statutes by refusing treatment solely because of her deafness. The decision rested on stipulations that the plaintiff was disabled and the defendant received federal funds, along with evidence that the doctor's stated medical concerns were pretextual and that no reasonable accommodations were considered. The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages.

civil rightshealthcare

This case involved defamation claims brought by Charles Caudle, president of an airline that provided charter services to the White House Press Corps, against Harry Thomason, who sought to obtain that business for his own aviation firm. The complaint alleged libel based on a memorandum suggesting improper political ties and campaign contributions by the airline, and slander based on statements accusing Caudle of corrupt practices and kickbacks to White House staff. The court granted the motion to dismiss the slander claim, finding it barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff had knowledge of the statements by early 1994, well before the amended complaint was filed, even assuming the discovery rule might apply. The court denied the motion as to the libel claim, determining that the memorandum could reasonably be understood as referring to Caudle personally and that other challenges to the claim, such as privilege, did not warrant dismissal at this stage.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

This case involved criminal charges against former Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar and her nephew Joseph DeMio related to 1992 campaign finance disclosure reports filed by Oakar's reelection committee and Oakar's overdraft at the House Bank amid the House Banking Scandal. The court dismissed Counts One and Two of the indictment but allowed the remaining five counts against Oakar to proceed to trial together, granted Oakar's motion to strike surplusage, and denied DeMio's motions for severance, grand jury disclosure, and a bill of particulars. The dismissal of Count One, charging criminal conversion under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for negotiating an insufficient funds check, rested on the absence of any clear, judicially manageable House Rule prohibiting overdrafts, as required by the Rulemaking Clause and precedents such as United States v. Kolter. The court reasoned that without an explicit House standard, it could not supply one to support criminal prosecution, particularly given the lack of consistent enforcement against other members with larger overdrafts.

criminal lawelectionsfederal power

The case involved the American Federation of Government Employees and four individual non-supervisory civilian Department of Defense employees challenging the legality of security questionnaires and broad release forms used in periodic reinvestigations and special inquiries for secret security clearances. The challenges targeted questions on criminal history, drug use, mental health, and credit history, as well as the release authorizing collection of extensive personal information from third parties, on both constitutional privacy and statutory grounds. The court held that AFGE lacked standing to bring the suit because it represented too broad a class of employees, requiring individualized adjudication to assess whether the questions were lawful in all circumstances. With respect to the individual plaintiffs' claims concerning criminal history questions, the court analyzed the issues by balancing limited privacy interests in public records such as arrests against the government's interest in the information.

civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal lawfederal power

The case involved the American Federation of Government Employees and three HUD employees challenging the requirement that certain federal workers complete Standard Form 85P and a broad release authorization to access sensitive agency databases, with specific objections to questions on drug use and financial history as well as the release's scope. Plaintiffs argued that the forms violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, constitutional privacy rights, and the Privacy Act. The court held that the individual plaintiffs had standing because refusal to comply could result in removal, reassignment, or demotion, creating a practical compulsion, and that the union also had standing in its representational capacity since its members faced similar requirements and the claims did not require individual participation. The court rejected the Privacy Act claims for injunctive relief, noting the statute limits such remedies to two narrow violations not present here.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

This case involved a dispute over the beneficiary of a federal employee's life insurance policy under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA). The decedent completed multiple beneficiary designation forms, initially naming his wife as sole beneficiary and later attempting to name his daughters as beneficiaries in specific percentages on a third form, but that form left the signature box blank despite the decedent printing his name and checking a related box. The court decided that the later form was invalid and the wife remained the sole beneficiary. The core reasoning was that FEGLIA requires strict compliance with its provision mandating a signed and witnessed writing received before death, and the decedent's actions did not satisfy the signature requirement under the statute.

federal powerproperty

In Stanwood v. Welch, plaintiff Herbert Stanwood sued defendant Garland Welch for breach of a May 1994 real estate option contract under which Welch was to purchase a commercial warehouse property for $300,000 if Stanwood tendered a valid deed within 180 days and the property remained in substantially the same condition. The court addressed four main issues: the existence of a binding contract, satisfaction of conditions precedent, possible excuse due to anticipatory repudiation, and damages. It denied Stanwood's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact on whether Welch entered a binding agreement, whether Stanwood could have met the property condition requirements, and the timing and effect of any repudiation by Welch. The court noted unresolved factual questions about the property's roof and floor issues and whether Stanwood could have remedied them within the contract period.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Title VII lawsuit brought by seventeen Black employees of the U.S. Government Printing Office against the agency, alleging racial discrimination in promotions, training opportunities, and work assignments for journeyman positions such as Video Keyboard Operator. Many plaintiffs had previously been part of class actions like MacRae v. McCormick and Brewington v. Boyle, which resulted in judgments or settlements favorable to GPO that barred relitigation of the same claims. The court found that plaintiffs failed to present specific evidence of discriminatory practices in the journeyman selection process during relevant periods, that technological changes eliminated certain positions, and that one plaintiff's individual claim for back pay was precluded by a prior settlement agreement. It concluded that GPO's priority system for assignments was not discriminatory and entered judgment for the defendant.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, the Regional Bell Operating Companies moved to modify Section II(D) of the antitrust consent decree to permit them to offer interexchange (long-distance) wireless and cellular services across LATA boundaries. The court granted the motion in part, allowing the Regional Companies to provide such services to their own cellular customers once objective conditions are met, subject to oversight by the Department of Justice and restrictions designed to prevent anticompetitive conduct. The core reasoning centered on the continued existence of the local-exchange "bottleneck" monopoly, which had justified the original interexchange prohibition; the court held that the prohibition could be relaxed only where the companies could demonstrate no substantial possibility of exploiting that bottleneck to disadvantage competitors, while still fostering competition in cellular long-distance markets.

business & regulatory