83 results for 'judge:"Contreras"'.
J. Contreras finds that the lower court properly terminated the father’s parental rights to his daughter. The evidence sufficiently supports the statutory grounds for termination, specifically that he failed to comply with certain “requirements ordered by the court.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 13-24-00040-CV, Categories: Evidence, Family Law
J. Contreras grants the secretary of the Treasury’s partial motion to dismiss a suit brought by individuals and business entities over the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s designation of the individuals as “specially designated nationals” on the “specially designated nationals and blocked persons list.” The court dismisses two counts asserting the department did not act within its authorities.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 1:24cv285, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Agency
J. Contreras grants the appellant's motion for rehearing and replaces the prior opinion with the current opinion, holding that the lower court properly granted the appellee's motion to dismiss this breach of contract lawsuit pursuant to Rule 91a. The court concludes that "attorney immunity applies" to the case, meaning the claim had no basis in law. The judgment is modified, however, as to the award of attorney fees. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00122-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Attorney Fees, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Contreras partially dismisses a former Veterans Affairs labor management relations specialist’s civil rights claims arising from VA’s termination of his remote work agreement, decision to transfer him from a Texas facility to an Arkansas one, and denial of a pay raise. His failure to accommodate claim fails because he did not specify what accommodations he needs or requested; he failed to allege causation for his disability discrimination claim; he succeeded in arguing that he may have been discriminated against when he wasn't chosen for a labor specialist role, however.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv3209, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Administrative Law, Jurisdiction, Medicare
J. Contreras offers a mixed bag to both the National Parks Conservation Association and the Department of the Interior, which the association is suing for allegedly failing to protect Florida’s Biscayne National Park. ON the one hand, the federal government has delayed the implementation of a marine reserve zone for too long, but on the other, it has not issued a final agency action that the court can review for being arbitrary and capricious. The association is owed FOIA attorney fees. The government is ordered to propose a zone designation as soon as it can.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv3706, NOS: Environmental Matters - Other Suits, Categories: Administrative Law, Environment, Agency
J. Contreras denies the employee's motion for summary judgment in her suit alleging that she was demoted, reassigned and ultimately terminated in retaliation for her criticisms of her employer's response to the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020, and partially grant's the employer's summary judgment motion. The employee argues that seven protected disclosures she made led to retaliation, but has only established a prima facie case of retaliation in relation to one of these seven. The employee's First Amendment retaliation claim survives summary judgment, since the employers' relevant, legitimate interests in protecting the release of inmates' and staff's health information are minimal relative to the employee's interest in "shedding light on the deplorable conditions in the D.C. Jail and the ongoing threat to inmate and staff safety." Finally, the employee's motion to file a substantial portion of her filings under seal is granted as to 16 exhibits, but denied as to others, including some which included information designated as confidential by the employer "out of an abundance of caution."
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv2944, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Employment, Whistleblowers, Employment Retaliation
J. Contreras finds on rehearing that the lower court improperly granted the husband's claims for reimbursement and reconstitution of the marital estate due to fraud. The evidence does not support his reimbursement claim, which was based on his alleged efforts to enhance the wife's separate property. Also, the evidence does not show that the wife committed fraud against the community. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00343-CV, Categories: Family Law, Property
J. Contreras finds that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment to the defendant store in this premises liability lawsuit alleging that a shopper was injured when she "slipped and fell on some water." The lower court erred in excluding certain expert testimony, specifically regarding the store's maintenance of the roof and its efforts to "contain the leak." Additionally, there are fact issues remaining for the jury. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00205-CV, Categories: Evidence, Negligence, Experts
J. Contreras grants, in part, a group of former police officers' motion to certify a class on their Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the district and police chief related to the police department's involuntary disability retirement policy. The proposed class meets certification requirements, including numerosity, commonality and typicality.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 1:19cv2800, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment, Class Action
J. Contreras denies, in part, the CIA's motion for summary judgment on a news publication's Freedom of Information Act case seeking records related to U.S. foreign relations and operations between the 1940s and 1970s. The CIA fails to sufficiently support certain withholdings under the National Security Act, and must submit an ex parte in camera declaration related to those withheld documents.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1138, NOS: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Other Suits, Categories: Communications, Government, Public Record
J. Contreras finds that the lower court improperly entered a default judgment against the appellant in this breach of contract suit involving the sale of an aircraft. The record indicates that the appellee failed to "strictly comply with the methods of service under the rules of civil procedure." Accordingly, there was no personal jurisdiction over the appellant. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00236-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Contract
J. Contreras denies, in part, the Department of Veterans Affairs' motion for summary judgment on an association's Freedom of Information Act case seeking records related to the policies of the department's police force at VA facilities. Certain withheld information is segregable and must be disclosed.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv1298, NOS: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Other Suits, Categories: Public Record, Veterans, Military
J. Contreras dismisses two individuals' putative class claims against the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which they say the EEOC has failed to enforce judgments entered in their favor against the Air Force and National Guard Bureau. Contrary to their claims, the EEOC has no clear duty to act to enforce the orders, and also has no duty to refer their cases to either the attorney general or the Office of Special Counsel.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv3246, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Administrative Law, Class Action, Labor