Tag Archives: Dan Mauler

C-Span to Broadcast Live Audio of Today’s 4th Circuit’s Argument on Immigration Executive Order

The Fourth Circuit will hear en banc the oral argument today at 2:30 pm in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.   For the first time (that we know) the Court will allow a live audio broadcast of proceedings.

Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit permitted the live audio broadcast of the argument on the prior Immigration Executive Order.  137,000 people logged in to listen.

Listeners can find the link to the audio feed on the Fourth Circuit’s web page here.  The Court has also advised that an MP3 audio file will be available for download approximately one hour after the argument concludes here.Graphic

The case Orders and Briefs are available online on the site.  In the Case Information section under Public Advisory #4 in the News & Announcements section on Page 1, the Orders, Briefs and more are accessible.

Only 14 of the Court’s 15 active judges will hear the case.  Judge Wilkinson has recused himself because his son-in-law is the Acting Solicitor General.  The even number of participating judges presents the awkward possibility of a tie vote.

For an overview of the issues in the appeal, you should see our earlier EDVa Update posts on the Immigration Order battles here, here, here, here, and here.  But if you only have time to review one post, go our March 30th post.   While the instant appeal addresses an order from the District Court for Maryland, and not Judge’s Trenga’s ruling in Sarsour et al. v. Trump, his opinion provides extremely well-reasoned coverage of the issues.

EDVA: Legal Malpractice Does Not Give Rise to Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim

A claim of legal malpractice by client against a former attorney does not, at the same time, give rise to a breach of fiduciary claim under Virginia law, according to Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division).  Judge Hudson’s ruling is a development in the law of fiduciary duty, and it goes into territory that has not yet been covered by the Virginia Supreme Court.

In Kylin Network (Beijing) Movie & Culture Media Co. Ltd v. Fidlow, 3:16-cv-999-HEH, 2017 WL 889620 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2017), the case began with a Chinese company that wanted to make a movie about the life of martial arts legend Bruce Lee.  The company hired the defendants (a Virginia attorney and his former law firm) to negotiate and obtain the movie rights with the supposed copyright owner.  According to the Complaint, after some negotiation, the attorney recommended that the plaintiff pay $1 million to the supposed seller of the rights.  After the payment was made, the plaintiff allegedly discovered the seller did not have good title to the movie rights.  The unhappy client then filed a three-count complaint in federal court against its former attorney for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

The defendants sought to dismiss all counts of the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The defendants first argued that the legal malpractice claim failed due to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.  While Judge Hudson recognized that contributory negligence could be a complete defense to legal malpractice, he ruled that the defense had to be resolved at trial by the fact-finder when “reasonable minds could disagree” on the disputed facts.  Thus, the judge denied the 12(b)(6) motion on this count.

The defendants, however, had better luck on the remaining two counts.  The plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, according to Judge Hudson, was based upon duties arising from the attorney-client relationship.  In turn, this relationship was based in contract, specifically the written engagement agreement between the law firm and the clients that gave rise to the legal malpractice claim.  Judge Hudson noted that the Virginia Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, but based upon prior precedent, he held that the breach of fiduciary duty had to arise from a duty independent of the attorney-client contract.  According to Judge Hudson, “[i]n Virginia, because legal malpractice is a contract claim, an additional claim for breach of fiduciary duty must be based on something other than a violation of a duty arising under the attorney-client relationship.”

Judge Hudson then made short work of the remaining fraud count, dismissing it on similar grounds and holding that such a claim must arise from a source other than the contractual relationship between the parties.

The plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim survived the 12(b)(6) stage, which appears to be the true core of the plaintiffs’ case.  But Judge Hudson’s opinion is notable as a development in the law of fiduciary duty in Virginia, a claim that seems to appear more frequently in business litigation in the Eastern District.

EDVA Back in the Immigration Fray: Judge Trenga Provides Qualified Win for President Trump’s New Immigration Order

The Eastern District of Virginia continues to influence the national debate over President Trump’s new Executive Order on immigration.  Judge Anthony Trenga of the EDVA offered one of the first wins for the Government when he denied immediate injunctive relief against the new Executive Order.  While Judge Trenga’s opinion was not the first to arrive in the Fourth Circuit, his decision is already appearing in the Government’s appellate briefs.

On Friday, March 24, 2017, in Sarsour et al. v. Trump (Case No. 1:17cv 120), Judge Trenga denied injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs challenging President Trump’s second Executive Order on immigration.  In a 32-page opinion, Judge Trenga provided detailed consideration of the replacement Immigration Executive Order issued by the Administration on March 6, 2017.  After cataloging significant changes in the replacement Order, the judge concluded that it’s not likely that the plaintiffs can prove that the President acted outside his delegated and constitutional authority, and thus the Court denied the emergency relief sought by the plaintiffs.

In our March 20th blog post, we reported on decisions from district courts in Hawaii and Maryland that granted nationwide temporary injunctive relief enjoining critical parts of the replacement Order.  The Government has noticed an appeal of the Maryland order to the Fourth Circuit.  Judge Trenga’s ruling is the first significant decision arguably upholding the constitutionality of the replacement Immigration Executive Order.

Meanwhile in the Fourth Circuit, the Maryland Order is on the hot seat.  The Government has moved to stay that Order and asked for accelerated briefing.  The Fourth Circuit granted the acceleration request on March 23rd, and the Government filed its Opening Brief the following day.  Additionally, 12 states field an amici brief in support of the Government’s position.  The opposition briefs are due on April 14th, and oral argument is scheduled for May 8th in Richmond.  Further, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte has requested the views of the parties whether the May 8th hearing should be en banc before all of the Fourth Circuit judges, instead of the customary three-judge panel.  The deadline for the responses of the parties on this issue is today.

The Replacement Immigration Executive Order

In a previous blog post, we summarized the replacement Order.  The first Executive Order from late-January had obvious facial flaws, including the absence of any national security justification for the critical and controversial “travel ban” provisions.

The replacement Order is, by all measures, facially neutral, and the Administration has provided its statement of justification focused on national security concerns.  The justification includes explanations of why each “travel ban” country poses significant immigration dangers.

Judge Trenga’s Sarsour v. Trump Opinion – Preliminaries

The Sarsour Complaint was filed by a series of individual plaintiffs; unlike the earlier Aziz v. Trump case where the Commonwealth of Virginia assumed the lead in the case, there is no state presence in this case.

The specific substantive claims are similar to those in the Hawaii and Maryland cases.  That is, there is a count based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), a claim grounded in the Establishment Clause, and then Due Process claims.

Judge Trenga sets the stage for his Sarsoar opinion by reminding us that he’s ruling on a TRO/Preliminary Injunction motion.  These are both “extraordinary remedies” which should be “granted only sparingly and in limited circumstances.”  He then outlines the now-familiar four-step analysis from Winter v. Nat.  Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

The Court’s findings recognize that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown their standing to challenge the new Executive Order.  The opinion then turns to the INA and APA-based claims. Recall that the earlier Maryland District Court opinion rejected the INA claim as a basis for temporary injunctive relief.  Judge Trenga likewise concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to clearly show that the President’s authority is limited under the relevant INA sections

The Critical Establishment Clause Analysis

As before in the other cases, Judge Trenga’s core analysis is directed to the Establishment Clause claim, which is Count 1 in the Sarsour Complaint.  Sarsour’s allegation is that the replacement Immigration Executive Order “violates the Establishment Clause because it disfavors the religion of Islam.”  Sarsour conceded that the new Executive Order does not facially violate the Establishment Clause, and the District Court then applied the three-part test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).  Within this test, Judge Trenga focused on the first part of the Lemon test, specifically whether the replacement order has a secular purpose.

Judge Trenga rejected the Government’s argument that the President offered a legitimate, rational, and non-discriminating purpose in the replacement Executive Order, and in turn, this permitted the federal courts to go outside of the four corners of the Order to analyze constitutional validity.  (This was the same argument that the Government made unsuccessfully in defense of the original Executive Order; the argument was also unsuccessful before the Ninth Circuit and before Judge Brinkema in Aziz v. Trump.)

Judge Trenga then went to the heart of the case: “[T]he question is now whether the President’s past statements continue to fatally infect what is facially a lawful exercise of presidential authority.”  The past statements are those by candidate Trump and campaign surrogates promising a ban on Muslim immigration.  These allegedly anti-Muslim statements were the bases for the earlier federal court decisions enjoining the original Executive Order, and they served as the bases in the Hawaii and Maryland District Court decisions enjoining the new Order.  Citing Supreme Court authority, Judge Trenga explained that “past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.”

Continuing in the next paragraph, Judge Trenga wrote, “the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that the statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority . . . .”   He then concludes “the substantive revisions reflected in [the replacement immigration Executive Order] have reduced the probative value of the President’s statements to the point that it is no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominant purpose . . . is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion . . . .”   The Establishment Clause count, therefore, failed at this point in the proceedings.

Continuing with the four-step TRO/Preliminary Injunction analysis, Judge Trenga agreed that the plaintiffs made an adequate showing of irreparable harm.  But because of the revisions in the replacement Executive Order, the plaintiffs did not establish that the equities tipped in their favor, and the plaintiffs also did not establish that the public interest favored the issuance of immediate injunctive relief.

The Fourth Circuit Accelerates Consideration of the Maryland District Court’s Ruling

On March 17th, the Government noticed its appeal of the injunction granted by the Maryland District Court.  If Judge Trenga’s Sarsour ruling is appealed, then the Fourth Circuit might consolidate the two cases. But even without a formal appeal, the Fourth Circuit will have before it multiple citations to Judge Trenga’s opinion and analysis in the Government’s opening brief.

At this point, the Maryland District Court injunction remains in place, and the Fourth Circuit will consider the matter promptly.  As noted above, the Government has already filed its Motion to Stay the Maryland Injunction, and the Fourth Circuit has accelerated consideration of the appeal.

At this point, the Fourth Circuit is likely to see the next major action on the Executive Order, as it appears that the Government is more interested in appellate review here as opposed to the Ninth Circuit.

Stay tuned.

Practitioners’ Alert: New Procedure to Request Emergency Relief After Business Hours

The EDVA Clerk’s Office recently announced a new procedure for civil emergency matters (such as requests for emergency injunctions or TRO’s), that seek the immediate attention of a district judge outside of regular business hours or during weekends / holidays.  This is a brand-new procedure – for both attorneys and staff in the Clerk’s Office.

The new procedure is briefly described here on the EDVA website.  First, a party must electronically file a written motion requesting the emergency relief.  If no case is currently pending, the attorney will need to electronically open a new case (see here for the process to open new cases), followed by electronically filing the motion that requests the relief.

Once the motion is filed, the party must then call the Clerk’s Office via a special telephone number, which varies among the divisions within EDVA.  The telephone numbers are:

  • Alexandria Division:      (703) 403-2789
  • Norfolk / Newport News Division:      (757) 619-0307
  • Richmond Division:      (804) 313-1762

According to the Clerk’s Office, these numbers will go to cell phones that will be monitored by Clerk’s Office staff members.  Attorneys who call the numbers should expect to leave a voice mail explaining the emergency, in addition to providing the case number and contact information for the attorney.  The staff member will then triage the voice mail messages in consultation with a judge who is “on duty,” and then return the call “within a reasonable period of time” to advise how the request will be handled.  Practitioners should not expect to speak directly to a staff member during the initial phone call.

Practitioners should also be aware that this is a new procedure for the Clerk’s Office, and staff members have yet to be fully trained on the new process.  While that training unfolds across EDVA’s divisions, practitioners should keep a handy reference back to the Clerk’s Office web page outlining the procedure.

The EDVA Drama Over the Immigration Executive Order Advances to the Preliminary Injunction Opinion: An Update on the Constitutional showdown in Judge Brinkema’s Court

This Blog post is the third in a series tracking the EDVA case of Aziz et al. v. Trump, the challenge to the January 27th Immigration Executive Order.  The earlier posts covered the January 28th Habeas Corpus Petition filing and the first courtroom confrontation on Friday morning, February 3, 2017, and then followed the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction aimed at Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, with an eye on parallel proceedings in the Seattle federal court and the Ninth Circuit.

This third Blog post reports on Judge Brinkema’s February 13th Order in Case No. 1:17cv116—LMB/TCB, which grants Virginia’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the judge’s accompanying Memorandum Opinion.  Consideration of the EDVa Order necessarily includes the Ninth Circuit’s February 9, 2017 Order and Opinion denying the Government’s request for an emergency stay of the February 3rd TRO issued by the Seattle federal district court.  The Seattle TRO enjoined the enforcement of Sections 3 and 5 of the Immigration Executive Order anywhere in the nation.  The Ninth Circuit left the TRO in place and returned the matter to the Seattle court for further proceedings.

Path to February 10th Hearing

Virginia’s Solicitor General, Stuart Raphael, set the battle lines in the Aziz case when he filed the Commonwealth’s February 2nd Brief in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  Virginia proposed a fairly narrow and targeted order.  Unlike in the Seattle case where Washington and Minnesota pursued a nationwide ban on both substantive sections of the Executive Order, Virginia focused on the harm to the Commonwealth and its residents, and it challenged only Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, the section that applied to immigrants from the seven specified countries who held Green Cards or student/work visas.  Raphael knew what evidence Virginia could marshal in the short time to the preliminary injunction hearing, and he seemingly tailored the objectives to mesh with the evidence.

On February 3rd, Judge Brinkema granted Virginia’s Motion to Intervene.  Her reasoning essentially confirmed Virginia’s standing in the case.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017, the Government filed its opposition to Virginia’s arguments.  Prior to this pleading, the Government had submitted its brief to the Ninth Circuit and had completed the appellate argument in an extraordinary telephone hearing (the circuit judges were in California, Hawaii, and Arizona, while the arguing counsel were in Seattle and D.C. – and 137,000 listeners followed the argument online).  The Government’s argument in the EDVA case tracked its position taken in the Ninth Circuit that the states did not have standing and that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to review the President’s findings and actions in the Executive Order.  The Government’s opposition went on to contest Virginia’s Due Process and Establish Clause arguments, but offered little or no evidence to support is defense.

The next day, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Government and rejected the effort to stay the Seattle TRO.  In the EDVA case, Virginia filed its Reply Brief along with pages of supporting affidavits and public statements made by then candidate-Trump and others.

To use a football analogy, the Government stacked its defense for an all-out blitz; in doing so, the Government risked that if the states did have standing and the federal courts decided the Executive Order was reviewable, then there would be no remaining defenders who might tackle the states’ claims on the facts.

Ninth Circuit’s February 9th Ruling

Late on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 denying the Government’s Motion for an Emergency Stay Pending an Appeal of the Seattle TRO.

The Opinion first batted down the argument that Washington and Minnesota did not have standing.  The Court then turned to the crux of the Government’s position, that the federal courts could not review the Executive Order.  The Opinion rejects the Government position: “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”  From there, the Court marches through the legal test and concludes that the Government has not met its burden to stay the TRO.

The Seattle TRO stands as a nationwide ban on enforcement of the key parts of the Executive Order.  The Government argued that the ban, even if upheld in part, was overbroad. The Ninth Circuit responded simply:  “[W]e decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO.”

Judge Brinkema’s February 13th Order and Opinion

In a one-hour Friday morning hearing before a packed courtroom, Judge Brinkema heard arguments on Virginia’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Aziz v. Trump.  Her Minute Order noted only that she was taking the matter “Under Advisement” and she would rule shortly.  The judge’s questioning of counsel, as reported by USA Today, highlighted a “startling” lack of evidence that travelers from the seven Muslim-majority countries represented a specific national security threat.  The judge, sua sponte, read from the joint affidavit by former national security officials who stated that they were “unaware of any specific threat” posed by travelers from the seven countries.  Following the hearing, the Government had few, if any, reasons to believe it might prevail when Judge Brinkema ruled.

Judge Brinkema’s Order and 22-page Opinion were released late on Monday, February 13, 2017.  The Order grants Virginia’s requested Preliminary Injunction, albeit without nationwide effect.  (For this limited scope, Judge Brinkema explains, “To avoid any claim that the preliminary injunction to be entered in this litigation is defective because of overbreadth, this Court declines the Commonwealth’s invitation to impose broader relief.”)  The Order bans enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Executive Order as applied only to Virginia residents and students who hold Green Cards or have otherwise valid visas.

Unlike the Seattle case, Aziz v. Trump followed an orderly procedure from TRO to Preliminary Injunction in the EDVA, with the opportunity for adequate briefing and presentation of evidence.  Virginia had even filed comprehensive Proposed Findings of Fact.  Indeed, Judge Brinkema’s Opinion includes an eight-page Findings of Fact section.

A year from now, the details of Judge Brinkema’s Opinion will be mostly forgotten.  Her dispatch of the Government’s lead argument that the Executive Order is not reviewable by the federal courts may, however, be long discussed.  The judge writes:

Maximum power does not mean absolute power.  Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set for Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

The Opinion even references Marbury v. Madison, probably the first case studied in Constitutional Law class.  

The EDVA Opinion does not discuss Virginia’s standing other than to reference Judge Brinkema’s Order and Opinion from February 3rd granting Virginia’s Motion to Intervene.  In the progression through the legal standard for preliminary injunction, the Opinion states that “[t]he Commonwealth had produced unrebutted evidence supporting its position that it is likely to succeed on an Establishment Clause claim.”  There is no discussion of Virginia equal protection, due process, or statutory claims except in a footnote where the Court explains that “[B]cause the Commonwealth has established a likelihood of success on its Establishment Clause claim, the court does not need to address [the other claims].”  The Court concluded that Virginia proved sufficient bases for the Preliminary Injunction Order.

Summary and Status

The Immigration Executive Order, issued only 2½ weeks ago, is now the subject of more than 40 lawsuits.  The drama began when international flights landed at JFK Airport and then at Dulles Airport—passengers who boarded the flights holding valid Green Cards and visas learned that an Executive Order issued after take-off blocked their legal entry into the United States.

In Aziz v. Trump, the EDVA case, the initial parties were the Aziz bothers and other travelers who were blocked from entry, denied legal counsel, and almost immediately placed on returning flights.  As the case moved forward, the parties shifted and the issues narrowed.  The Commonwealth of Virginia sought to intervene.  Soon, in both the EDVA litigation and in the Seattle case, the states had the leading roles, and the issues focused on the states’ standing and whether the federal courts could review the Executive Order.  The Ninth Circuit and now the EDVA have confirmed that the states do have standing.  And, perhaps most significantly, the courts have emphatically rejected the Government’s argument that this Executive Order is beyond review by the federal courts.

The Seattle case has returned to the district court with the initial nationwide TRO banning enforcement of most of Sections 3 and 5 of the Immigration Executive Order in place.  In a new order issued this morning, the Seattle district judge noted that the Ninth Circuit construed the TRO as a preliminary injunction, and thus he has dispensed with further consideration of a preliminary injunction and has ordered the parties “to continue with other aspects of this litigation.”

Meanwhile, after 112 Docket entries and appearances by 28 amici parties, Judge Brinkema’s more limited Preliminary Injunction Order may now be appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

Week 2 in the EDVA Drama Over the Immigration Executive Order: An Update on the Charged Immigration Issues Brewing in Judge Brinkema’s Court

While national media attention has focused on tonight’s hearing before the Ninth Circuit regarding President Trump’s immigration Executive Order, there are still proceedings in the Eastern District that could become center stage.  This Blog post is the second post tracking the legal events in the EDVA case of Aziz at al. v. Trump, the challenge to the January 27th Immigration Executive OrderLast week’s post covered the sprint from the January 28th initial Habeas Corpus Petition filing to the first courtroom confrontation on Friday morning, February 3, 2017.  This week, the focus shifts to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction aimed at Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, but also with an eye on parallel proceedings in the Seattle federal court and the Ninth Circuit.

Friday’s Orders in EDVA, Seattle, and the Ninth Circuit

Before the close of business on Friday, February 3, 2017, Judge Brinkema released her Order and Memorandum Opinion covering the issues argued that morning in Aziz v. Trump, Case No. 1:17cv116—LMB/TCBThe Order and Opinion continued her earlier Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to Friday, February 10th, and set the stage for the Court’s consideration of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction aimed at Section 3(c) of the Executive Order.

Meanwhile, 2,500 miles away in the Seattle federal court and before the Ninth Circuit, a broader set of issues advanced.  The Seattle judge, in Washington v. Trump, 2:17cv141, issued a TRO that barred enforcement of both Section 3(c) and most of Section 5 of the Executive Order.

The Government sought emergency relief from the TRO in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On Saturday, February 4th, the appellate court denied the Government’s request for emergency relief, but ordered the parties to file briefs on Sunday evening and on Monday.  After the expedited briefing, the Ninth Circuit scheduled a telephonic hearing for later this evening (Feb. 7th) on the Government’s Motion for a Stay of the underlying TRO.  A ruling is expected shortly, most likely within a few days.

The Immigration Executive Order

An Executive Order is technically not legislation but instead a presidential directive to executive agencies as to how to enforce certain laws.  The core of the January 27th Immigration Executive Order: (1) calls for a review by Homeland Security (in consultation with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence) of the U.S. visa-issuance procedures, (2) in Section 3(c), puts a 90-day ban on entry (with limited exceptions) on individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries (the ban on persons from Syria is indefinite), and (3) in Section 5, suspends for 120 days the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.  (An added provision appearing immediately after the travel ban calls for the government to develop a “uniform screening standard and procedure” for all individuals seeking to enter the United States.  Applied literally, this appears to require all visitors to go through the same screening measures, regardless of where they come from or how long they intend to stay.  This added provision is not the subject of either the EDVa or Seattle proceedings.)

Section 3(c) is the lightning rod for the current Aziz v. Trump litigation.

EDVA Proceedings and Posture

Judge Brinkema’s February 3rd Orders granted Virginia’s Motion to Intervene.  The Court also permitted intervention by a second set of individual plaintiffs.  The judge continued her Saturday Night TRO to February, February 10th.  Under FRCP Rule 65(b)(2), a TRO’s duration cannot exceed 14 days.  Thus, Judge Brinkema will hear argument on Virginia’s Preliminary Injunction Motion on February 10th.

Virginia’s brief targets Section 3(c) of the Executive Order.  The Commonwealth filed its Complaint on February 3rd.  Its Preliminary Injunction Motion and brief were filed the day before.  The Government’s brief is due early this week.

Virginia’s argument is first that Section 3(c) is too broad.  As written, the section bars visa and Green Card holders from seven Muslim-majority countries from entry into the U.S. for 90 days.  The Virginia brief cites U.S. Supreme Court authority holding that Green Card holders have due process rights, and the Executive Order strips them of their rights without an available process.  The Virginia argument extends these rights to certain visa holders as well.

The second argument contends that the Executive Order was “motivated by animus towards Muslims.”  The brief argues that the directives are presumptively unconstitutional and should be held to strict scrutiny.

The expected Government response will track arguments in the Government’s Ninth Circuit brief described below.

Seattle Federal Court and the Ninth Circuit

As has been widely-reported in the national press, on February 3rd, a Seattle federal judge granted a TRO sought by the States of Washington and Minnesota.  His TRO is much broader than Judge Brinkema’s Order—the Seattle TRO bars enforcement of Section 3(c) and most of Section 5 of the Executive Order.   Additionally, the Seattle TRO is granted “on a nationwide basis” while Judge Brinkema’s current Order is narrowly written.  The parties in the Seattle matter were directed to submit no later than the end of February 6th a briefing schedule.  In an email from the Washington Solicitor General to the Department of Justice counsel, Washington State proposes that the Preliminary Injunction briefs be due on February 9, 15, and 17 in the Seattle district court.

Meanwhile, the Government sought from the Ninth Circuit an immediate stay of the Seattle TRO.   On Saturday, February 4th, a two-judge panel denied the emergency motion.  The Court ordered Washington and Minnesota to file briefs by 11:59 p.m. PST on Sunday night.  The states filed.  The Government’s Reply came in right at the 3 p.m. PST deadline.

The Washington/Minnesota Brief in Opposition to the Motion for a Stay includes a supporting declaration signed by former members of the Obama Administration, including Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Michael Hayden, Janet Napolitano, Leon Panetta, and Susan Rice that makes, among other things, a policy argument.   The affidavit concludes by alleging that “the Executive Order does not further—but instead harms—sound national security and foreign policy.”

The Government’s response argues from the start that “the Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees.”  The response also attacks the Seattle TRO as “vastly overbroad.”

If the Ninth Circuit denies the Government’s Motion for a Stay, then a route to the U.S. Supreme Court theoretically opens.  But the more likely result is that the case remains at least for another ten days in the Seattle district court—the Seattle judge’s TRO lasts at most 14 days, so he should rule on the Motion for Preliminary Judgment, probably close to February 17th.  That Order could then go back to the Ninth Circuit, and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

State Department and Homeland Security Press Releases

At the same time as the legal wrangling, the State Department issued a press release stating that it had restored more than 50,000 cancelled visas and that the “provisional revocation [of visas pursuant to the Executive Order] is now lifted, and those visas are now valid for travel to the United States, if the holder is otherwise eligible.”

Similarly, Homeland Security announced via its website on February 4th that it had “suspended all actions to implement the Immigration Executive Order and will resume standard inspections of travelers as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban.”  But the press release added that the Justice Department will continue to defend the Executive Order.

The Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Friday, February 10th

Assuming that the Ninth Circuit denies the Government’s Motion for a Stay, the national focus likely shifts to the EDVA proceedings because of the Preliminary Injunction hearing set for this Friday before Judge Brinkema.  This hearing comes at least one week before the issues regarding the Executive Order would likely return to the Seattle federal courtroom.

Unless the Ninth Circuit provides a comprehensive opinion in response to the Motion to Stay the Seattle TRO, a ruling and opinion from Judge Brinkema will be the first substantive ruling on provisions of the Executive Order.  We might then expect the Government to take the issue immediately to the Fourth Circuit.

Thus, it is very possible that the national spotlight will suddenly shift to Alexandria after tonight’s telephone hearing before the Ninth Circuit.  If you are a practitioner appearing in federal court in Alexandria for Friday motions, be prepared for a heavy police presence, protesters, and a long line at security.

The EDVa Drama Over the Immigration Executive Order: From IAD to Courtroom 701 in Seven Wild Days

News reports have followed the short saga of the Immigration Executive Order issued on Jan. 27th by President Trump, but the legal saga culminating in this morning’s hearing (Friday, Feb. 3rd) before Judge Brinkema is remarkable, even by EDVA standards.

Earlier this morning, the first confrontation over the Executive Order unfolded in Judge Brinkema 7th Floor courtroom in Aziz at al. v. Trump, Case No. 1:17cv116—LMB/TCB.  As filed, the matter addressed the detainment of two brothers, both Green Card holders, traveling through Dulles Airport on their way to meet their father, who lives in Flint, Michigan.  The plight of the Aziz brothers appears now to be resolved, but the Commonwealth of Virginia has sought to intervene to push the broader issues with the Executive Order.

The issues before Judge Brinkema included the original parties’ Motion for Abeyance, Virginia’s Intervention Motion, the Motion of a second set of Plaintiffs to Intervene, and a Rule to Show Cause.  The Minute Order shows that the judge granted both Motions to Intervene and the original parties’ Motion to Hold Claims in Abeyance.  The judge denied, however, the Motion for the Rule to Show Cause.

The case thus continues with the Commonwealth of Virginia seemingly in the driver’s seat on the Plaintiffs’ side.

Friday Afternoon Executive Order

President Trump signed his Executive Order at about 4:30 PM on Friday, January 27, 2017.  As of the time of signing, flights from the Middle East heading to various US international airports were already in the air with arrivals beginning on Saturday morning.  This meant that a number of passengers from the seven foreign nations identified in the Executive Order were flying into an uncertain situation.  These passengers held Green Cards and valid student/work visas – without this advanced-entry approval, they never would have been permitted to board the international flights in the first place.

Saturday Morning—Incoming Flights

The first of the affected flights landed at JFK Airport early on Saturday, January 28th.  About 45 minutes later the first affected flight landed at Dulles Airport.  On board the Dulles fight were the two Aziz brothers, Yemeni nationals who were granted Green Cards because their father is a US citizen.  The brothers were connecting through Dulles on the way to Michigan where their father was planning to meet them.

The Aziz brothers and as many as 60 other arriving passengers were detained by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and blocked from leaving a designated area at Dulles Airport.  CBP is an agency within the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Habeas Petition and TRO/Injunction

Apparently anticipating a showdown, a group of immigration lawyers gathered at Dulles Airport.  By questioning passengers who were not detained, the lawyers confirmed that the Aziz brothers and others were in fact detained.  There was also concern that this group of detainees were being questioned by CBP officers and possible arrangements had been made to return the detainees to the countries from which they came.

The lawyers sought access to their new clients, but the CBP denied all access.

Late that afternoon, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for an Injunction were filed in the Alexandria federal court.  The filing sought a targeted TRO: first, the Petitioners asked that the attorneys be granted access to their clients, and second, that for a minimum of at least seven days the detainees not be removed from the United States.

At about 9:30 PM on Saturday night, Judge Brinkema signed a two-point Temporary Restraining Order.  The Order requires that “respondents shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport.”  The TRO continues that “respondents are forbidden from removing petitioners–lawful permanent residents at Dulles International Airport–for a period of 7 days from the issuance of this Order.”

CBPs Saturday Night Defiance of the TRO

Copies of Judge Brinkema’s Order were delivered to the lead CBP officers at Dulles Airport.  The CBP officers apparently defied the federal court order–the lawyers who were to have access to their clients were again denied that access.  It also is the case that CBP put several, and perhaps many, of the detainees on return flights during the day on Saturday.

Sunday—Congressional Visitors to Dulles

On Sunday, January 29th, several members of Congress from the DC area, including Rep. Don Beyer, appeared at Dulles.  Beyer, in an affidavit later filed with the federal court, reported that “to my knowledge, not a single attorney was permitted access to any detained traveler.  My congressional colleagues and I were also denied access to detainees.”  Beyer concluded in his affidavit that “CBP’s continued enforcement of the Executive Order amounted to a constitutional crisis: four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and we were all turned away.”

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Intervention

On Tuesday, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to intervene through its Attorney General, Mark Herring.  The next morning, Virginia filed with the federal court a Motion for a Rule to Show Cause, essentially requesting that the recipients of the TRO Order be required to explain their defiance or be held in contempt of court.  The Virginia pleadings sought a hearing on Friday, February 3rd.   Virginia additionally moved for a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, the broader section of the Executive Order.  Judge Brinkema set the Virginia Intervention Motion and the Motion for the Rule to Show Cause for a hearing this morning (Feb. 3rd).

On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney entered an appearance.  Not long afterwards, the original parties filed a Joint Request to Hold Claims in Abeyance.  The pleading states that the parties “have a signed agreement to resolve Petitioner’s claims against Defendants.”   For this reason, the parties asked that Petitioner’s claims in this case be held in abeyance.

Thursday’s Pleadings Avalanche

The pleadings continued to pour in on Thursday—the PACER Docket Sheet lists twelve entries.

Virginia offered an additional Declaration in support of its motion for a Rule to Show Cause.  Virginia also filed its Opposition to the Joint Motion to Hold Claims in Abeyance. The Virginia Brief argues that “the Government’s conduct suggests that it may be maneuvering to delay the case in order to avoid having to account for whether it complied with this Court’s Temporary Restraining Order.”  The argument continues, “the Government has been holding press conferences claiming that it promptly complied with this Court’s TRO. It has time to explain why it appears that not even a single LPR [Green Card or student/work visa holder] detained at Dulles has been allowed to see a lawyer.”

The Virginia position is that while the claims of the Aziz brothers appear to be on their way to resolution, the issues regarding the constitutionality of the Executive Order still must be adjudicated.  Then, a second group of individual plaintiffs filed their own Motion to Intervene.

Just before 7 PM, Virginia filed its Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction.  The US Attorney then filed its Opposition to Virginia’s Intervention and Opposition to the Rule.

Friday Morning Hearing

The Court’s schedule for this morning’s hearing showed Aziz v. Trump as the only remaining matter on Judge Brinkema’s 10AM docket.  Local authorities warned of traffic backups in the vicinity of the Alexandria federal courthouse.

The Court’s Minute Order confirms a 64-minute hearing and provides a cryptic summary of the rulings.  Judge Brinkema granted the joint Motion to Hold Matters in Abeyance—this perhaps resolves the Aziz brothers claims.  But the judge granted Intervention to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to the second Plaintiffs (though the Motion for a Rule to Show Cause was denied).  The Preliminary Injunction Hearing remains on the calendar for next Friday, February 10th.

A wild week in the Rocket Docket, and with the potential for more to come next week.

Handling Overlapping and Duplicative Damages

In a recent case, Judge Liam O’Grady astutely handled in his Jury Instructions and a Special Verdict Form the prospect of a jury’s duplicative and overlapping damage determinations.  He then resolved the parties’ dispute on overlapping damages when he decided post-verdict remittitur motion.  This case provides a roadmap for practitioners on how to handle similar problems in future cases.

Multi-count Complaint and Overlapping Damages

The case of Hair Club for Men, LLC v. Ehson et al, Civil Action No. 1:16cv236–LO/JFA involved a two-year covenant not-to-compete.  Plaintiff (a former employer) sued to enforce the covenant against a departing employee and her new employer.  Plaintiff sought not only an injunction but also considerable damages.

The Complaint alleged the usual suite of claims found in covenant-not-to-compete cases. The leading claim was for Breach of Contract, followed by claims for Trade Secrets Misappropriation, Tortious Interference, Unjust Enrichment, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The case narrowed at summary judgment when the Court held that the defendants were liable on certain counts.  Judge O’Grady ruled that the non-compete covenant was enforceable, and that, as a matter of law, the ex-employee breached her fiduciary duty.  But still the Trade Secrets and Tortious Interference claims had to be tried, and the measure of damages for all claims was left open for trial.  Perhaps surprisingly, the case did not settle after these rulings.

Seven months after filing of the Complaint, the case went to a jury trial for four days.  The jury’s Special Verdict Form awarded Breach of Contract damages of $156,096, and then awarded damages of $258,330 on each of the three remaining counts.  Additionally, the jury responded to the question of whether the damages awarded were duplicative by circling “Yes.”

Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form

Judge O’Grady’s jury instructions navigated through the duplicative damages issue, and the Special Verdict Form focused the jury on the key question of duplication.  Jury Instruction No. 39 addressed the possibility of overlapping damage awards:

In this case, Hair Club seeks to recover the same type of damages for lost profits on its breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with contract and business advantage claims. A party is not entitled to multiple recovery for its losses. However, if you find that Hair Club has proved every element of each of its damages, and is entitled to recover for its claimed losses, you will be asked whether the recovery is duplicative, so that Hair Club does not recover more than it is entitled.

On the Special Verdict Form, Question No. 7 asked “Are any of the answers to questions 1, 3, 5, or 6 duplicative?”, followed by a simple “Yes/No” option.  (The four identified questions corresponded to Plaintiff’s four separate remaining counts.)

Dealing with Duplicative Damages

Despite the simple “Yes/No” question, the jury’s verdict left uncertainty as to the overall damages.  If the Court simply added all of the multiple damage awards, then the result would be a judgment for $934,086.  Plaintiff agreed that the jury intended that the three awards of $258,330 were for the same conduct and damage.  But Plaintiff also argued that the Breach of Contract damages should be added to the common damages, for a total damage award of $414,426.  Judge O’Grady, however, concluded that the appropriate total damage award was $258,330.

Virginia law prohibits the award of duplicative damages “when the claims, duties, and injuries are the same.” Wilkins v. Peninsula Motorcars, Inc., 266 Va. 558, 587 S.E.2d 581 (2003).  Judge O’Grady added that the “two claims are not duplicative if the conduct underlying the claims is different.”  For this, he cited Advance Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. PRC Inc., 256 Va. 106, 501 S.E.2d 148 (1998), and his analysis tracks the Wilkins opinion.  The trial court must “evaluate whether multiple damage awards constitute impermissible double recovery” and that under Virginia law it is the responsibility of the trial court in reviewing a verdict to supervise “the damage awards to avoid double recovery.”

Plaintiff relied on Advanced Marine to argue that the damages were in part separate and therefore should be added to yield the aggregate damage award, but Judge O’Grady distinguished Advance Marine.   In that case, the plaintiff proved a common set of compensatory damages under separate claims for Trade Secrets Misappropriation and Business Conspiracy.  While the plaintiff was limited to only one set of compensatory damages, the plaintiff was allowed to recover both punitive damages under the Trade Secrets claim and to treble the compensatory damages under the Business Conspiracy claim.

Judge O’Grady summed his conclusion by stating that “compensatory damages for the same injury, based on the same evidence, should be awarded only once.  This was consistent with Advance Marine.  This rule holds even if the injury is articulated in multiple causes of action with separate burdens of proof.”  But equally important, the judge ruled that it was his responsibility to make the determination using the jury’s answers on the Special Verdict Form.

Summary

The dilemma of overlapping and repetitive damages arises frequently.  In the case before Judge O’Grady, the jury considered damages on four separate counts.  The trial evidence, however, addressed the damages as a single compensatory loss.  When the jury answered that the damages were duplicative, it was then the trial judge’s responsibility to resolve the parties’ disagreement on the extent of the duplication.

Too often, a jury’s verdict states only its liability findings and separate awards on multiple counts.  In this situation, a judge ventures into potentially dangerous territory if he or she imputes that the damages are duplicative.

A question for both trial lawyers and judges is how best to manage this issue to steer away from the quagmire.  Judge O’Grady’s jury instruction in Hair Club cleanly instructs on duplicative damages.  He coupled his Instructions with the simple Special Verdict Form question about duplication.  In Hair Club, this seems to have worked well, and perhaps is the model for multi-count cases where the claimed damages overlap.

New Trend in Attorney’s Fees Declarations?

As the judges of the Eastern District continue to differ regarding reasonable hourly rates for attorneys, practitioners need to be aware of a potential new trend regarding declarations supporting or opposing petitions for attorney’s fees.  Unfortunately, that new trend appears likely to make such petitions more detailed and time-consuming – and therefore, more expensive.

Traditionally, declarations supporting a petition for attorney’s fees in the Eastern District have followed a familiar pattern: An outside attorney reviews the hourly rates charged, the number of hours charged, the docket sheet, and selected motions/briefs.  The resulting opinions were usually based upon a “general” review of or familiarity with the litigation.  These reviews were not usually “deep dives” into the documents, pleadings, or billing records for a good, simple reason:  keeping costs down.

This custom may need to change, based upon the recent case of Salim v. Dahlberg, 1:15-cv-468 LMB / IDD, 2016 WL 2930943 (E.D. Va. May 18, 2016), which was covered by the EDVA Update here.  In that case, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Alexandria Division was faced with a petition for attorney’s fees after the plaintiff prevailed on part of his civil rights claim.  The petition was supported by declarations from six leading attorneys, all whom have extensive experience in the Eastern District.  As Judge Brinkema said in her opinion, all six were “well-known to and well-respected by the Court,” and all “summarily conclude[d] that the hourly rates charged and hours worked were reasonable.”

In opposition, the defendant submitted one declaration by attorney Wayne G. Travell, a partner with Hirschler Fleischer’s Tysons office.  Despite the lop-sided number of supporting declarations, Judge Brinkema rejected much of the plaintiff’s fee petition (along with the conclusions in the six supporting declarations) and essentially adopted much of the opinion and analysis expressed by Mr. Travell.

Mr. Travell’s declaration is extensive, at 18 pages long with 47 paragraphs.  He discusses in detail the steps he took to form his opinion (including documenting the telephone calls he had with the respective counsel).  He recounts the applicable law, and then provides a detailed recitation of the facts (citing and quoting from the pleadings in the case).  The heart of his declaration, however, appears to be nearly eight pages of detailed examination of the plaintiff attorney’s time records, including identifying alleged instances of double-billing, block-billing, and vague entries.

In her opinion, Judge Brinkema sided with Mr. Travell’s declaration because he “actually reviewed counsels’ billing records, provide[d] a detailed analysis of those records, discusse[d] the specific issues involved in the case, and evaluate[d] the work performed with respect to those issues.”  In contrast (according to the court’s opinion), the six supporting declarations were unpersuasive because none went into a “detailed analysis of plaintiff’s counsels’ time sheets; instead, the declarants base their conclusions almost exclusively on a review of the pleadings and of [plaintiff counsel’s] declaration.”

Mr. Travell’s declaration is another example of judicial pushback in the Eastern District against excessive attorney hourly rates (or, at least hourly rates perceived as excessive by the bench).  But it also likely signals that some judges will more closely scrutinize petitions for attorney’s fees, including attorney declarations that support and oppose those petitions.  For this reason, Mr. Travell’s declaration is likely a roadmap for future petitions in the Alexandria Division, if not throughout the Eastern District.  And the irony is straight-forward:  While the intent may be to hold down hourly rates, the added expense of more detail in such declarations will ultimately increase the cost of litigation overall.  But regardless of this impact, practitioners need to be aware of this possibility.

Is there a New Cap on Recoverable Attorney Rates in EDVA?

There is yet further disagreement among the judges of the Eastern District regarding reasonable attorney hourly rates.  As we noted in a previous EDVA Update here, this disagreement is manifesting itself most frequently in the Alexandria Division, as judges there confront (and push back against) the higher hourly rates frequently charged by larger law firms in the Northern Virginia/ DC metro area.

Today’s example of the disagreement comes in the recent case of Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC v. Drew May, et al., 1:14-cv-1183, 2016 WL 3582065 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2016).  In this case, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District invited a plaintiff to file a motions for sanctions and attorney’s fees after successfully demonstrating that the defendant made materially false statements in both an affidavit and during courtroom testimony.  But after the plaintiff petitioned for over $63,000 in attorney’s fees, Judge Brinkema strongly criticized the hourly rates and record keeping of plaintiff’s counsel, and she cut the fee award down to only $17,000.

To justify their hourly rates, plaintiff (represented by attorneys from both the DC and Connecticut offices of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC) relied upon the matrix of hourly rates approved by Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Vienna Metro (discussed in a prior EDVA Update here).  But Judge Brinkema rejected the Vienna Metro matrix.  By doing so, she sided with Judge T.S. Ellis’s opinion in Route Triple Seven (also discussed in a prior EDVA Update here) in the ongoing dispute regarding hourly attorney rates.  Below is a summary of the experience levels of each attorney, the hourly rates sought by the plaintiff, and the rates awarded by Judge Brinkema:

Attorney’s Legal Experience

Requested Hourly Rate

Awarded Hourly Rate

30 years $ 545 $ 450
9 years $ 395 $ 350
6 years $ 335 $ 275
5 years $ 320 $ 250

To set these hourly rates, the court followed the rates determined by Judge Ellis in Route Triple Seven.  Significantly, Judge Brinkema did not rely upon any other expert witness testimony or evidence to set these hourly rates.  (And, as we saw in the Route Triple Seven case, there the court relied upon its own “experience” to determine an appropriate reasonable rate.)  These hourly rates are in sharp contrast to the $550 – $600 hourly rates approved by Judge Lee in Vienna Metro.

It is clear that a revolt against high hourly rates (or, at least, rates perceived as high) is brewing among many judges of the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District.  It also appears that a hard cap of approximately $450 – $500 for an experienced attorney’s hourly rate is forming, at least in the eyes of several judges who have rejected the Vienna Metro matrix.