Timothy James Kelly

This case involved a subpoena issued by the D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. Park Police, a federal agency, requiring production of bodycam footage, audio, and reports related to a 2022 motor vehicle accident. The underlying litigation was a personal injury lawsuit in Superior Court between private parties, and the Park Police, not a party to that suit, removed the subpoena to federal district court and moved to quash it. The court granted the motion to quash, holding that sovereign immunity bars enforcement of state-court subpoenas against federal agencies. It reasoned that D.C. Superior Court subpoenas are treated as state-court subpoenas under 28 U.S.C. § 1451, and federal sovereign immunity protects agencies from such subpoenas, unlike those issued in federal court where immunity has been waived. The court distinguished contrary precedent as applying only to federal-court subpoenas.

federal powerprocedure

Elizabeth Brokamp, a psychologist licensed in Virginia, sought to provide teletherapy services to clients in the District of Columbia but could not do so without obtaining a District license as a professional counselor. She sued the District of Columbia, arguing that the licensure requirement for professional counselors violated the First Amendment both as applied to her and facially as overbroad. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the requirement violated the First Amendment as applied to Brokamp. The court granted her motion for summary judgment in part, denied the District's cross-motion, entered judgment for Brokamp, and awarded her declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the relevant licensing provisions against her.

free speechhealthcare

Kayla Smith sued Camden Development Inc. and Jose Mancilla for sexual harassment under Title VII and D.C. law, plus common-law negligence and battery, alleging that Camden's "Hug Life" hugging policy fostered a hostile work environment that led to her sexual assault by Mancilla at work. After the court dismissed all federal claims against Camden and resolved most other claims, Mancilla moved to dismiss the remaining D.C.-law claims against him for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that it possessed supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and would exercise its discretion to retain them given the case's advanced stage, extensive discovery with overlapping facts, and the plaintiff's choice of forum.

civil rightslabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Canarte, the defendant pleaded guilty in 2022 to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, illegal receipt of a firearm while under indictment, and second-degree theft, offenses committed while on supervision for a prior conviction; this resulted in a criminal history score of 10 under then-applicable Sentencing Guidelines that added two points for such conduct, leading to a 53-month sentence via a binding plea agreement. After the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines in 2023 to add only one point instead, Canarte moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence to 51 months based on the lowered range. The court first confirmed that the reduction was consistent with applicable policy statements but then denied it after weighing the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing Canarte's post-sentencing prison infractions involving weapons possession and threats, as well as his recent guilty plea to attempted assault with a dangerous weapon. The court concluded that deterrence and public protection considerations, along with his broader criminal history, did not support any reduction.

criminal lawprocedure

Emi Mallon, a pro se plaintiff, sued her former employer, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging sex discrimination and other misconduct in violation of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to serve process. Although the court twice extended the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and specifically instructed Mallon that she needed to serve the civil-process clerk at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in addition to the Attorney General and the agency head, her filings never demonstrated compliance with Rule 4(i). The court found no basis to grant further extensions after these warnings, citing the D.C. Circuit’s rule that pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with the Federal Rules.

civil rightsprocedure

Touraj Zakeri, an Iranian-born Canadian citizen, applied for a U.S. tourist visa in August 2022, which was refused and placed in administrative processing after interviews. He previously sued government officials to compel adjudication of his application, but that case was dismissed in July 2024 for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In this second lawsuit filed in September 2025 against the Secretary of State and Consul General, Zakeri brought similar claims under the Mandamus Act and Administrative Procedure Act alleging unreasonable delay. The court dismissed the case, holding that Zakeri lacked standing to sue the Secretary of State and failed to state a claim because the delay was not unreasonable under the TRAC factors, given the government's interests and the lack of bad faith.

immigrationprocedure

This case involves former crew members of the USS Pueblo, along with their families and estates, who sued North Korea after the ship was captured in international waters in January 1968, resulting in one death and the remaining crew being held hostage for eleven months during which they endured beatings, starvation, and torture to extract false confessions. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and state tort law seeking damages for the acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and after North Korea failed to appear, they moved for default judgment. The court granted the motion, holding North Korea liable based on detailed findings of fact regarding the capture and captivity, and awarded compensatory damages using the Heiser framework for pain, suffering, and solatium while declining an upward adjustment for family members to maintain consistency with awards in prior similar cases.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityfederal power

Yi Sun, proceeding pro se, sued several parties in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a landlord-tenant dispute involving her New York City apartment. The court had previously dismissed some defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the alleged conduct occurred entirely in New York with no ties to the District of Columbia. After Sun filed additional arguments and a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, the court reviewed her submissions as a response to an earlier show-cause order on service of process. The court declined to revise its prior dismissal order, denied the injunction motion because Sun failed to meet the required showing of likelihood of success or irreparable harm, and dismissed the case as to the remaining defendants for insufficient service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

procedureproperty

Ariel Lebron Velazquez, a former Army Staff Sergeant living in Thailand with serious health conditions, sued the Department of the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs. He alleged that the Army unlawfully refused to correct his military records to reflect a medical retirement and remove an inaccurate court-martial order, and that the VA failed to process his benefits applications as a result. He sought a court order compelling the Army to correct the records and the VA to adjudicate and pay benefits. The court dismissed the case, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against the VA and that Velazquez failed to state a claim against the Army under the APA or for mandamus relief. The court reasoned that Velazquez did not allege facts showing any Army Board for Correction of Military Records decision was arbitrary or capricious, nor identify any clear nondiscretionary duty owed by the Army, and he conceded key arguments by not responding to them.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

David Vanison, a former Uber driver proceeding pro se, sued Uber Technologies after the company deactivated his driver account, alleging race-based discrimination under Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Uber moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, citing the arbitration provision in the 2022 Platform Access Agreement that Vanison had accepted, which included a delegation clause addressing threshold issues like enforceability. Vanison opposed the motion, arguing the arbitration terms were unconscionable. The court granted Uber's motion, holding that the parties had clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that Vanison's claims fell within the provision's scope, and therefore stayed the case pending arbitration.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Juana Minano sued DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., alleging that the company failed to investigate and correct fraudulent accounts on her credit report, neglected identity theft prevention procedures, and improperly transferred her mortgage debt without authorization, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as seeking a declaratory judgment. The district court granted DLJ's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It dismissed with prejudice the claims under FCRA sections 1681i(a)(5), 1681c-2, and 1681s-2(a) because those provisions apply only to consumer reporting agencies or lack a private right of action, and DLJ is alleged to be a furnisher of information. The court dismissed without prejudice the remaining FCRA claims and the declaratory judgment count for lack of sufficient factual allegations to state a claim or establish standing, but permitted Minano to file an amended complaint by a set deadline.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Earl Ishmal sued Tracey Turner and Turner Development LLC for breaching a 2021 real estate investment contract worth $270,000 and a later forbearance agreement for an additional $20,000, after the defendants failed to make required payments. Following entries of default against both parties, Ishmal moved for default judgment seeking $290,000. The court granted the motion against Turner Development LLC, finding the well-pleaded allegations and contract documents established liability and the specific damages amount. It denied the motion against Turner without prejudice, however, because the complaint did not sufficiently allege facts to hold her personally liable for the LLC's debts under the initial contract, given general rules shielding LLC members and unresolved choice-of-law issues.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Ivy Pendleton sued Capital One, N.A., alleging that the bank inaccurately reported multiple late payments on her credit cards to consumer reporting agencies in 2024, which lowered her credit score and caused higher interest rates, fees, reputational harm, and lost opportunities. She brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), common-law breach of contract, and common-law defamation. The court granted Capital One's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the FCRA claim failed because subsection 1681s-2(a) provides no private right of action and subsection (b) was not plausibly pled, the CFPA and defamation claims were preempted by federal law, and the contract claim lacked allegations of a breached promise. The court also denied leave to add a D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act claim as futile because the facts did not allege deceptive practices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Fresenius Kabi USA, a manufacturer of injectable drugs including heparin products, participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and sought to reclassify certain products as noninnovator drugs to pay lower rebates to states. In September 2024, CMS denied the request via letter but invited the company to submit additional information or clarifications within 30 days, stating that the decision would become final only if no response was received. Fresenius Kabi responded with a letter and supporting materials challenging the denial, then filed suit alleging that CMS's action was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the denial was not final agency action and thus not reviewable. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the ongoing agency review process meant there was no final action triggering APA jurisdiction.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved environmental organizations suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedure Act in the agency's annual setting of national timber harvest targets without environmental review, as well as in approvals of specific timber projects whose environmental assessments inadequately addressed cumulative carbon emissions. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that timber targets are not discrete agency actions subject to APA review because they arise from non-binding bottom-up projections rather than top-down mandates, and that the Forest Service complied with NEPA by taking a hard look at cumulative impacts in project-level assessments without needing nationwide aggregation or precise quantification of all emissions.

environmentprocedure

Francesco Santora sued the Copyright Claims Board in federal district court, alleging procedural irregularities in its handling of his claim seeking a declaration of noninfringement against MGM over his self-published novel, which had received DMCA takedown notices; the Board had dismissed Santora's claim for failure to prosecute after he filed various motions regarding MGM's conduct. The Board moved to dismiss Santora's suit for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, in part because Santora conceded most of the Board's arguments and because the Board had no obligation to decide the merits of his pending motions once it issued a final determination by dismissing for failure to prosecute under the relevant statute and regulations.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Jeremy Achey, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence for drug trafficking, submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys seeking six specific documents or sets of documents from his criminal case. The agency located and produced two of the items in paper format after an adequate search but did not locate the others and initially provided no electronic versions. Achey did not challenge the search adequacy or seek a Vaughn index but moved for summary judgment solely to obtain an electronic copy of Exhibit 31, which the agency had located digitally. The court granted summary judgment to the agency on all issues except that one, holding that FOIA requires production in the requested electronic format when the record is readily reproducible that way, as it was here, and directed the agency to mail the electronic copy. The ruling relied on the statutory language and D.C. Circuit precedent requiring agencies to honor format requests where feasible.

procedure

In Gosain v. Republic of India, an American plaintiff sued the Indian government and its agencies under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the allegedly improper liquidation of his Indian company during bankruptcy proceedings over two decades ago. The district court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the plaintiff had not properly served them in accordance with the Hague Service Convention. The court therefore denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted the plaintiff additional time to perfect service, deferring other jurisdictional and venue challenges.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

JG Law, PLLC filed a FOIA request seeking records from USCIS and the Department of State about its client's visa applications and 2001 revocation. The agencies released eight pages but withheld one page in part under Exemption 7(E) and 22 pages in full under Exemption 3. After the plaintiff sued and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, the court held that the plaintiff had waived any challenge to the adequacy of the agencies' search and that the agencies had properly justified their withholdings while releasing all reasonably segregable non-exempt material. The court therefore granted the agencies' motion, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, and entered judgment for the defendants.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

Rifat Shafique sued the United States Marshals Service, claiming that the agency unlawfully evicted her from her apartment in March 2023 without a valid writ, framing the action as a tort for illegal policing, wrongful detainer, and unlawful eviction in violation of the Fourth Amendment and civil rights statutes, and seeking millions in damages along with return of the property. The Marshals Service removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that sovereign immunity barred all claims because Shafique had not shown any applicable waiver, and noting that similar claims had been litigated and dismissed in multiple prior cases.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability