Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Bruce Jacobs, a Florida foreclosure attorney, filed a qui tam action against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA). Jacobs claimed that JP Morgan Chase forged mortgage loan promissory notes and submitted false reimbursement claims to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He asserted that JP Morgan Chase used signature stamps of former Washington Mutual employees to endorse loans improperly, thereby defrauding the government by seeking reimbursement for loan servicing costs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Jacobs's initial complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b). The court also noted that Jacobs needed to establish that he was an original source of the information under the FCA’s public disclosure bar. Jacobs amended his complaint, but the district court dismissed it again, this time with prejudice. The court found that Jacobs still failed to meet the Rule 9(b) requirements and that the FCA’s public disclosure bar applied because the allegations had already been disclosed in three online blog articles, and Jacobs was not an original source of the information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the blog articles, which were publicly available before Jacobs filed his lawsuit, qualified as "news media" under the FCA. The court found that the allegations in Jacobs's complaint were substantially the same as those disclosed in the blog articles. Additionally, Jacobs did not qualify as an original source because his information did not materially add to the publicly disclosed allegations. Therefore, the FCA’s public disclosure bar precluded Jacobs's lawsuit. View "Jacobs v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A." on Justia Law

Jonathan Mullane, a law student intern at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2018, was terminated from his position due to ex parte communications with a law clerk regarding a pro se case he had filed. Subsequently, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rescinded an internship offer to him. Mullane requested documents related to his termination from both the DOJ and SEC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. He claimed that the agencies did not conduct adequate searches and improperly withheld documents. The agencies moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted their motions in full.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the DOJ and SEC, dismissing Mullane's claims. Mullane appealed the district court's decision regarding the DOJ, arguing that the DOJ's search for documents was inadequate and that the district court erred in holding that the Privacy Act imposes a jurisdictional exhaustion requirement. Mullane also challenged the district court's denial of his requests for pre-dismissal discovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the DOJ conducted an adequate search for documents under FOIA, as the search was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents. The court also found that Mullane had waived any argument against the district court's conclusion that the Privacy Act's exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the DOJ, dismissing Mullane's FOIA and Privacy Act claims. View "Mullane v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

David Meinhardt, a police officer, was suspended for 44 hours by the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, a decision upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, challenging the suspension. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. The City served Meinhardt with a notice of entry of this order on August 14, 2020. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, the court entered a formal judgment, which Meinhardt served on the City on September 22, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed Meinhardt's appeal as untimely, holding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which the appeal should have been taken. The court reasoned that the order was sufficiently final to constitute the judgment, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the issue of when the time to appeal begins in administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal starts with the entry of a formal judgment or the service of notice of entry of judgment, not with the filing of an order or other ruling. The court emphasized the importance of clear, bright-line rules to avoid confusion and ensure that parties do not inadvertently forfeit their right to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, finding that Meinhardt's appeal, filed within 60 days of the entry of the formal judgment, was timely. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Thomas Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied due to a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court, which was flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The charge was noted as continued for a year pending counseling, with no conviction confirmed. Zundel's voluntary appeal to the FBI was denied because the final disposition of the case was missing. Zundel sought records from various agencies, but none had documentation beyond the initial arrest. He then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to close the case and restore his constitutional rights.The Jamestown Municipal Court and other respondents argued that Zundel had an adequate remedy in federal court, referencing Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that a federal suit would not adequately address the state court records issue. The court emphasized the municipal court's duty to maintain accurate records and noted that the missing record should have been retained permanently according to administrative rules.The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate or reconstruct the missing record and document the results. The court denied Zundel's requests for declaratory relief regarding the nature of the 1990 charge and his right to possess a firearm, citing a lack of evidence in the record to make such determinations. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate court records for due process and public accountability. View "Zundel v. City of Jamestown" on Justia Law

Maria Pomares submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concerning potential misconduct within the VA. She suspected that Charmain Bogue, the director of the Education Service in the Veterans Benefit Administration, had improper ties to a political advocacy organization and that the VA might have leaked nonpublic information. After Pomares submitted her FOIA requests, the VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that Bogue had acted improperly.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the VA. The court concluded that the VA’s search for responsive emails was reasonable and that the VA properly justified its withholdings under FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 7. The district court found that the Vaughn Indices provided by the VA were adequate and included sufficient detail to justify the withholdings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment regarding the adequacy of the VA’s search for emails and the application of Exemption 4 to records obtained from Evocati. The court also affirmed the application of Exemption 6 to the redaction of names and contact information, except for the names (but not email addresses) of Veterans Education Success (VES) employees who lobbied Congress or the VA. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment regarding the withholding of OIG interview transcripts under Exemption 7(E), as the VA did not adequately justify that the interview techniques and methods used by OIG fell within this exemption. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Pomares v. USDVA" on Justia Law

Jacquelyn N’Jai filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, New York University (NYU), Long Island University (LIU), Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), and FMS Investment Corporation (FMS), alleging various violations of federal law. N’Jai claimed that she had repaid her student loans but was falsely certified for additional loans by a bank analyst, with NYU and LIU allegedly signing her name on fraudulent loan applications. She contended that the Department of Education and its debt collectors used unlawful practices to collect on these loans, including garnishing her tax refund and threatening to garnish her Social Security checks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed N’Jai’s claims against LIU, NYU, ICR, and FMS for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing the government contacts exception. This exception prevents the assertion of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant’s contact with federal government agencies in the District of Columbia. The court dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants for other reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the government contacts exception under D.C. law is limited to First Amendment activities. The court noted the ongoing uncertainty about the scope of this exception, referencing previous cases where the D.C. Court of Appeals had not definitively resolved whether the exception is confined to First Amendment activity. Due to this uncertainty, the appellate court certified two questions to the D.C. Court of Appeals: whether the government contacts exception is limited to First Amendment activity and, if so, whether the contacts alleged in this case fall under that exception. The appellate court did not make a final ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue, pending the D.C. Court of Appeals' response to the certified questions. View "N'Jai v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

A group of property owners sued Columbia County over stormwater drainage issues that caused damage to their property. The property, purchased in 1996, contained a metal pipe used in the County's stormwater system. Over the years, heavy rains caused the pipe to fail multiple times, leading to significant property damage. The property owners sent a notice to the County in October 2013, outlining their claims, but the County declined to make repairs. The property owners then filed a lawsuit in March 2014, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further damage.The trial court found in favor of the property owners, ruling that the County maintained a nuisance that amounted to a taking without just compensation. The court awarded damages and issued a permanent injunction against the County. The County appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed some parts of the trial court's decision and vacated others. The Court of Appeals vacated the damages award for harms incurred after the October 2013 notice and reversed the award of attorneys' fees. However, it upheld the injunction against the County.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the injunction, ruling that it exceeded the bounds of the Georgia Constitution's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. The Court directed the Court of Appeals to remand the case to the trial court to consider a new injunction within the constitutional limits. The Supreme Court also concluded that it should not have granted certiorari on the issue of damages for harms incurred after the October 2013 notice, as the Court of Appeals' ruling was specific to the facts of this case and did not establish a general rule of law. The petition for certiorari on this issue was therefore denied. View "Satcher v. Columbia County" on Justia Law

A charter school was accused of manipulating attendance records to receive excess state aid. The Minnesota Department of Education (the Department) audited the school based on these allegations and found significant discrepancies, leading to a retroactive reduction in aid by over $1.3 million. The school appealed the audit results administratively, but the Department upheld its decision.The school then appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department should have investigated the allegations under a statute dealing with violations of law (Minn. Stat. § 127A.42) rather than the statute used for auditing aid distributions (Minn. Stat. § 127A.41). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Department's decision, stating that the Department had the authority to conduct the audit under the statute it used.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the Department was required to investigate under the statute related to violations of law. The court held that the Department had the statutory authority to audit the school under Minn. Stat. § 127A.41 and was not required to investigate under Minn. Stat. § 127A.42, even though the allegations involved potentially illegal activity. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the Department's actions were within its legal authority. View "Minnesota Internship Center vs. Minnesota Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of Perdue's "Fresh Line" chicken and turkey product labels. ALDF claimed that the labels, which depicted birds roaming outside, were misleading because the birds were raised indoors. ALDF requested the USDA to disapprove these labels, arguing that they misled consumers. The USDA declined, leading ALDF to sue, alleging violations of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed ALDF's complaint, concluding that ALDF lacked standing to challenge the USDA's actions. The court found that ALDF failed to establish both organizational and associational standing. Specifically, the court determined that ALDF's member, Marie Mastracco, did not suffer a sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court, finding that ALDF did not demonstrate that Mastracco faced an ongoing or imminent injury. The court noted that while Mastracco was misled by the labels in the past, she now knows the truth about the birds' living conditions, making any future reliance on the labels self-inflicted. Additionally, the court found that ALDF failed to show that other poultry-product labels with similar misleading graphics existed, which would be necessary to establish a substantial likelihood of future harm.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of ALDF's complaint without prejudice, holding that ALDF lacked standing to pursue its claims. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses, rely on home health aides for essential care. They allege that Medicare-enrolled providers have either refused to provide in-home care or offered fewer services than entitled, attributing this to the policies of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They sought systemwide reforms through a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of Article III standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that their requested relief would redress any harm. The court noted that the injuries were caused by private home health agencies (HHAs) not before the court and that it was speculative whether enjoining the Secretary would change the HHAs' behavior. The court also found the plaintiffs' requested relief too general, making it difficult to evaluate its potential impact.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate redressability, a key component of standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs' injuries stemmed from the independent choices of private HHAs, and it was speculative that the requested injunctions would prompt these agencies to change their behavior. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Secretary's enforcement policies were a substantial factor in the HHAs' decisions. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit, and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Johnson v. Becerra" on Justia Law