Sparkle Leah Sooknanan

In Pink Cheetah Express v. Total Quality Logistics, Sooknanan held that a federal agency guidance email lacked the authority of an enforceable order under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(1). She granted the broker's dismissal motion.

“This sort of ‘workaday advice’ by an agency official cannot be an actionable ‘order,’ Rhea Lana, 824 F.3d at 1028 (quotation omitted), that gives rise to a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(1).”

In Torres v. Wormuth, she set aside the Army's reversal of a board recommendation because the Deputy Assistant Secretary did not explain his disagreement with the board's eight factors. She rejected counsel's later justification for the decision and remanded the matter to the Army.

“these three grounds make it impossible for the Court to discern why he disagreed with the ABCMR; indeed, he never even addressed any of the eight factors relied on by the ABCMR ... This was a fatal mistake, even under the highly deferential standard”

In Ruhumuriza v. Higgins, she found that the plaintiffs forfeited their substantive-rule challenge after copying language from another case without attribution or explaining its fit to their challenge to refugee-application processing.

“The Court declines ‘to do counsel’s work.’ ... By failing to do more than regurgitate largely inapplicable language from Pacito, the Plaintiffs have forfeited this claim.”

In Regis v. Mayorkas, Sooknanan allowed discrimination and retaliation claims about a performance improvement plan to reach trial because the timing and comparator evidence could support a finding that the agency's reasons were pretextual.

“But on this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Secretary’s asserted reasons were pretext for discrimination and retaliation.”

In Brighton Park Neighborhood Council v. McMahon, she denied a jurisdictional motion to dismiss the challenge to discontinued education grants. She held that the plaintiffs' request for some relief available under the APA was enough at that stage, even though the court might not ultimately grant every remedy they sought.

“although the Court may not be able to award all the relief the Plaintiffs ask for in their prayer for relief, ... no further inquiry is necessary at this time.”

In Pearson v. CACI, Sooknanan denied leave to amend after the plaintiff failed to file the proposed amended pleading required by the local rule, despite an order asking her to do so.

“Accordingly, without a proposed amended pleading to evaluate, the Court denies Ms. Pearson’s request for leave to amend.”

In Rivas v. United American Security, she accepted the fee lodestar after a wage settlement but reduced it by 15% to reflect the plaintiffs’ partial success.

“Applying a 15% reduction given the Plaintiffs’ partial success, the Court will award $542,674.00 in attorney fees.”