Rosemary M. Collyer

This case involves challenges by IT consulting firms and related plaintiffs against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding its handling of H-1B nonimmigrant visa petitions for foreign specialty workers. The court addressed issues including CIS's authority to approve visas for periods shorter than three years, requirements for demonstrating an employer-employee relationship when workers are placed at third-party sites, and the need for specific job details. The court determined that certain CIS policies, such as those in the 2018 Policy Memo requiring proof of non-speculative work assignments for the full visa duration, were inconsistent with existing regulations, issued without proper rulemaking, and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the court partially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and remanded the petitions for reconsideration consistent with the opinion.

immigrationbusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involves Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi national held at Guantanamo Bay for 18 years as an enemy combatant after capture under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release and moved for examination by a mixed medical commission under Army Regulation 190-8 to determine eligibility for repatriation based on his pre-existing mental illnesses and health deterioration. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion to compel the examination over government opposition. The court reasoned that D.C. Circuit precedent establishes the regulation as domestic law applicable to Guantanamo detainees, that al-Qahtani demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success if the commission finds him eligible, and that the public interest in enforcing the regulation and exercising habeas jurisdiction outweighs the asserted burdens on the government.

criminal lawfederal power

Wanda Smith Battle, an African-American woman employed as a Program Management Analyst by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, sued the agency and supervisors under Title VII alleging race and sex discrimination. Her claims centered on a temporary denial of approval to attend one training seminar, where a supervisor questioned whether she would comprehend the material because attendees would be engineers and professors, as well as her subsequent transfer to another non-compliant program without credit or promotion for prior work. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. It reasoned that the training denial did not constitute an adverse employment action because Battle ultimately attended the seminar after an appeal, the denial lasted only about a month, and she alleged no facts showing a material effect on her pay, hours, title, responsibilities, or promotional opportunities.

civil rightslabor & employment

In United States v. Williamson, Jeffrey Henry Williamson was convicted by a jury of threatening to assault and murder an FBI agent in retaliation for the agent's official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). After his conviction was affirmed on appeal with a remand for access to jury records, Williamson filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, along with related motions for discovery, expansion of the record, and a hearing, raising claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The District Court for the District of Columbia denied the § 2255 motion and all accompanying requests, concluding that the claims lacked merit or that the court lacked jurisdiction over certain claims regarding Bureau of Prisons treatment, which must be pursued in the district of confinement.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by UnitedHealthcare and other Medicare Advantage insurers to a 2014 CMS rule that eliminated a fee-for-service adjuster in Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits, requiring insurers to repay extrapolated overpayments without accounting for error rates in unaudited traditional Medicare data. The court had previously vacated the Overpayment Rule for failing to ensure actuarial equivalence between Medicare Advantage payments and traditional Medicare reimbursements, as required by statute. The government then moved for partial reconsideration, seeking to narrow the ruling based on new empirical analysis of error rates. The court denied the motion, finding that the underlying data had been in CMS's possession for years but was not litigated earlier and that the new analysis was unpersuasive. The decision emphasized that the prior ruling provided practical relief and that post-judgment agency proposals did not justify revisiting the outcome.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved disputes over multiple lease agreements for office copiers entered into by Africare, a nonprofit, with CDS, CIT, and DLL between 2013 and 2015. Africare alleged that CDS used misleading tactics to induce the leases and failed to fulfill promises to cover prior obligations, leading to defaults after reduced funding; the leasing companies sued for breach, and Africare counterclaimed. The court consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment to CDS, CIT, and DLL on all claims, while denying Africare's counterclaim against DLL. It awarded DLL over $287,000 in damages plus interest and fees based on the explicit terms of the 2013 and 2015 lease agreements, which provided for accelerated payments, late fees, and other charges upon default, with no material facts in dispute regarding liability or the damage calculations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved three defendants convicted in 2014 of conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, with two also convicted on related firearm charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) that were later vacated after the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya. Following their release from prison, each defendant moved for early termination of their three-year supervised release terms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The court granted early termination for defendant Eshetu, finding that his steady employment, compliance with conditions, and the interests of justice supported it, but denied the motions for defendants Lovo and Sorto after weighing the statutory factors including the nature of the offense, deterrence, public protection, and other considerations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the American Hospital Association and other plaintiffs challenging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 2020 Final Rule, which reduced reimbursement rates under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System for evaluation and management services at off-campus provider-based departments. The court had previously ruled that the agency's similar 2019 reductions exceeded its statutory authority under the Medicare Act and had vacated those portions of the rule. Plaintiffs sought to enforce that judgment by striking down the 2020 rule before implementation, but the court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Medicare reimbursement claims must first satisfy the statute's channeling requirements for administrative review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(h), 405(g), and 1395ii before district court consideration.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Saquawn Harris, who was sentenced in 2008 to 78 months in prison for unlawful possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and firearm possession by a felon, moved under the First Step Act to reduce his sentence based on lowered statutory penalties and guidelines for crack offenses. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion. The court reasoned that its original sentence already incorporated a significant downward variance from the career-offender guideline range due to an unanticipated prior conviction, and the § 3553(a) factors that supported that sentence remained unchanged. It concluded that the existing sentence at the low end of the originally anticipated range was sufficient and that further reduction was not warranted.

criminal law

In Hutchins v. Dyncorp International, Inc., two former DynCorp employees who had served as plaintiff-relators alleged violations of the False Claims Act arising from the company's performance of a logistics support contract with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, including claims of fraud and retaliation for internal complaints about billing and subcontractor issues. After most claims were dismissed, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint pro se, shifting from relators on behalf of the United States to individual plaintiffs pursuing only the retaliation claims. The court denied the motion, concluding that the proposed amendment was futile because the plaintiffs' internal inquiries and complaints did not qualify as protected conduct under the FCA that would have placed DynCorp on notice they were acting in furtherance of an FCA suit, as those actions remained within the scope of their ordinary job responsibilities.

criminal lawlabor & employment

Jose Renan Martinez Matute sued CNN Construction, Inc. and its owner for unpaid overtime wages on construction projects in Maryland and the District of Columbia, asserting claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as D.C. and Maryland wage laws. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim after finding no evidence or allegations supporting enterprise coverage or individual coverage under the statute. The court dismissed the federal claim without prejudice, granting the plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend the complaint to allege a basis for individual coverage based on interstate travel, and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice under supplemental jurisdiction principles.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Fuentez, officers executing a search warrant in an unrelated sexual assault investigation discovered a pistol in the defendant's room, leading to his later arrest on a felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant moved to suppress the pistol as the product of a warrantless seizure and to suppress a post-arrest statement made after officers questioned him in violation of his Miranda rights. The court denied suppression of the pistol, holding that it was properly seized under the plain view doctrine because its incriminating character was immediately apparent given the defendant's prior felony. The court granted in part and denied in part suppression of the statement, ruling it inadmissible in the government's case-in-chief due to the Miranda violation but admissible for impeachment because it was made voluntarily without coercion.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In this case, Aaron Darnell Grant, a former IRS special agent, challenged the Merit Systems Protection Board's 2015 decision upholding his 2013 removal from the Department of the Treasury for lack of candor, failure to follow procedures, and failure to cooperate in an investigation. After the district court granted summary judgment to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Grant sought reconsideration, arguing that a Treasury Inspector General report used in the underlying proceedings was fraudulent, unauthenticated, or inadmissible hearsay. The court denied the motion, holding that Grant's allegations did not undermine the MSPB decision, that hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, and that the Board's ruling was supported by substantial evidence, including Grant's own statements, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a construction contract for upgrades to plaintiff Michael Seibert's residential property in Washington, D.C., where Seibert sued the contracting company PCS and its owner for claims including breach of contract and fraud after refusing final payment due to alleged shoddy work and missing permits. The defendants counterclaimed against Seibert for breach of contract and fraud, and against Seibert and his attorney for defamation. Seibert and the attorney moved to dismiss the fraud and defamation counterclaims. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the fraud claim failed under D.C. law because any duties were contractual rather than independent tortious misrepresentations, and the defamation claims were conceded by the defendants.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Amiri v. Omni Excavators, Inc., the plaintiff sued her former employer and its principals under the D.C. Human Rights Act and Title VII, claiming she was fired after ending a consensual relationship with one principal, and also asserted claims for unpaid wages under D.C. law and breach of contract. The court considered defendants' motion to exclude all of plaintiff's untimely disclosed evidence and witnesses, as well as to strike her late initial disclosures and dismiss the case. The court granted the motion in part by imposing sanctions including requiring plaintiff's counsel to pay defense attorneys' fees for oral argument preparation, barring testimony from an unidentified witness, and limiting her documentary evidence on gender claims, while denying dismissal. The core reasoning was that plaintiff's repeated failures to meet Rule 26 initial disclosure deadlines and respond to discovery caused substantial delay, warranting sanctions short of dismissal given that defendants had also failed to conduct proper discovery.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, James Dorsey sued his former criminal defense attorney, Raymond Jones, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and legal malpractice stemming from Dorsey's 2013 conviction for possessing an unregistered firearm discovered during a police search of his wife's residence. After the federal district court granted summary judgment to the District of Columbia and MPD officers on Fourth Amendment claims, only the state-law claims against Jones remained. The court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those remaining D.C. common-law and statutory claims and therefore remanded the case to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia rather than dismissing it. The decision rested on the principle that when federal questions are eliminated before final disposition, district courts should remand ancillary state-law claims to the original forum.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, subcontractor Telligent Masonry sued the sureties on a Miller Act payment bond to recover approximately $114,000 allegedly owed for masonry work on a federal construction project at St. Elizabeths West Campus. After the prime contractor Grunley intervened and asserted counterclaims against Telligent under their subcontract, Telligent moved to dismiss those counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or under forum non conveniens, citing a forum-selection clause designating Maryland state court. The district court denied the motion, holding that the forum-selection clause did not apply to the current procedural posture in which Telligent had chosen to file a Miller Act action in federal court and Grunley had intervened as of right. The court further reasoned that considerations of judicial economy, the public interest in resolving related claims together, and the private interests of the parties all favored retaining the counterclaims in the District of Columbia rather than requiring Grunley to refile elsewhere.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by the American Hospital Association and others to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Final Rule that selectively reduced reimbursement rates under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System for Evaluation and Management services provided at off-campus, provider-based departments. The court had previously held that CMS exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a non-budget-neutral rate reduction outside the normal OPPS schedule and had vacated the relevant portions of the rule while remanding to the agency. CMS then moved to modify the order to allow remand without vacatur or, alternatively, to stay the order for 60 days pending appeal. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the rule's deficiency was a fundamental statutory misinterpretation not curable by additional agency explanation, that vacatur was the ordinary remedy for unlawful agency action, and that CMS failed to demonstrate the requisite factors for a stay such as irreparable harm.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved parents of a 13-year-old student M.H. suing the District of Columbia under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because DCPS failed to complete all required assessments in evaluating the child for special education services and could not defend the incomplete evaluation at an administrative hearing. The parents sought public funding for a full independent educational evaluation (IEE) covering all five assessments, while DCPS offered to fund only the two it had mishandled and contested the need for more. The court granted the parents' motion for summary judgment and denied DCPS's cross-motion, ordering DCPS to fund a comprehensive IEE and remanding the matter for a new hearing officer to develop an appropriate compensatory education program. The reasoning centered on IDEA regulations requiring a publicly funded IEE when a school district cannot show its own evaluation was appropriate, combined with the hearing officer's failure to conduct a fact-specific inquiry into compensatory services.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved parents of a seventh-grade student, K.H., who challenged the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) after DCPS failed to complete all five agreed-upon assessments and could defend only three at an administrative hearing. The parents sought public funding for a full Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) covering all necessary assessments, while DCPS offered funding for only the two assessments it had not performed. The court granted summary judgment to the parents and denied DCPS's cross-motion, holding that DCPS's inability to defend its incomplete evaluation entitled the student to a comprehensive, publicly funded IEE. The decision rested on IDEA's requirement that schools demonstrate the appropriateness of their evaluations, and on the statute's provision allowing parents to obtain an IEE at public expense when the school's evaluation is deficient.

civil rights