Beryl A. Howell
How Judge Howell rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Howell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In FOIA Exemption 5 cases she applies the attorney-work-product 'because of' test and accepts an agency's withholding where its declarations show a subjective, objectively reasonable anticipation of litigation; an exemption justification suffices if it appears 'logical' or 'plausible.'
“Ultimately, an agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.”
In APA arbitrary-and-capricious review she will rule for plaintiffs on the merits where agency action is contrary to statute or unexplained: she found grant terminations 'contrary to statute' and 'arbitrary and capricious' and granted a preliminary injunction in part, while rejecting an overbroad policy-and-practice theory not supported on the record.
“They are also likely to succeed in showing that the five grant terminations in the record were arbitrary and capricious (Count Four) ... despite plaintiffs not making a sufficient showing that the broader alleged policy and practice of arbitrarily terminating grants likely violates the APA.”
Procedural preferences
On an unopposed dispositive motion she follows LCvR 7(b): she first orders the non-movant to respond and warns (a Fox-style warning for pro se parties) that non-response risks the motion being granted as conceded, then grants the motion as conceded if nothing is filed.
“The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file his opposition or other response to that motion ... warning that failure to respond to the motion carried with it the risk that the motion could be granted as conceded and this case dismissed.”
She enforces claim preclusion strictly and treats a new legal theory on the same facts as barred: res judicata 'precludes the relitigation of claims, not just arguments,' so a plaintiff who lost on the merits cannot refile dressed up with new theories.
“Plaintiffs, having alleged ‘no new facts,’ are ‘simply raising a new legal theory,’ but ‘[t]his is precisely what is barred by res judicata.’”
She will not let a plaintiff bundle many unrelated claims into one complaint: faced with dozens of distinct FOIA requests in a single suit she granted partial summary judgment on the policy/practice count, dismissed-as-conceded the requests not actually at issue, and severed the rest for separate refiling.
“Plaintiff has attempted to shoehorn dozens of unrelated FOIA requests into a single Complaint, and in so doing has made this case overcomplicated, with a moving target of issues to address for both opposing government counsel and this Court. This confusion stops with this decision.”
Cautions
She demands a real forum connection for personal jurisdiction: where every defendant and every alleged act is outside D.C., the suit is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2), and a plaintiff cannot manufacture jurisdiction by raising a new D.C.-contract theory for the first time in an opposition brief.
“except for plaintiffs' alleged citizenship, no allegation in the Complaint has any relation to the District of Columbia.”
She treats tactical attacks on opposing counsel as a serious litigation risk. In consolidated wage cases she found a meritless disqualification campaign reckless and partly pursued in bad faith, then ordered defense counsel and the firm to reimburse $172,635.10 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
“This tactical use of a disqualification motion to distract plaintiffs’ counsel and extract substantive litigation concessions is unacceptable.”
An agency cannot moot out judicial review by voluntarily ceasing the challenged conduct mid-litigation: after GSA refunded ~$30M and moved to dismiss as moot, she denied the MTD and reached the merits of its audit authority.
“that agency cannot dodge judicial review of its power-grab so easily.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court will therefore grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss as conceded and dismiss this case, but will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot, and will also terminate all other pending motions.”
“but will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot, and will also terminate all other pending motions.”
“Accordingly, all the defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint are GRANTED, and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's pending motions for reconsideration, to take judicial notice and to deny the defendants' Bill of Costs are DENIED.”
“Following in camera review of the disputed withheld records, for the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is granted to ED and denied to plaintiff.”
“For the reasons below, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to the policy or practice claim in Count II is granted.”
“the part of the pending motion to dismiss sixteen of the FOIA requests that appeared to be at issue in Count I but were not, including the fourteen requests on the Iowa Chart and FOIA Request Numbers 2020-02640 and 2020-01450 on the WLC Chart, is granted as conceded”
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained herein, Crowley's motion for speedy declaratory judgment is denied in part and granted in part, defendant's motion for partial judgment is granted, and defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Crowley's motion for speedy declaratory judgment is denied in part and granted in part, defendant's motion for partial judgment is granted, and defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for summary judgment under Rule 56. ... For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.”
“For the reasons explained below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Defendants now move to dismiss, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ... For the reasons explained below, defendants' motion is granted.”
“For the reasons explained below, this Court grants the motion for preliminary injunction in part, denies it in part, and denies the motion for expedited discovery.”
“this Court grants the motion for preliminary injunction in part, denies it in part, and denies the motion for expedited discovery.”
“MWAA’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim, and plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied as futile.”
“plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described in the Report and Recommendation”
“defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described in the Report and Recommendation”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recent sampled assignments include agency-review and public-records disputes, employment and wage claims, environmental matters, prisoner mandamus, contracts, education, copyright, and consumer-protection litigation. This is a qualitative view of the sampled docket mix, not a complete nature-of-suit distribution.
Draft for Judge Howell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace