Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor
This text of Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor (Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1887
CRISELL SEGUIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, representing the United States Secretary of Labor, the Honorable Alexander Acosta,
Respondent,
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP.,
Intervenor.
No. 17-2259
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, representing the United States Secretary of Labor, the Honorable Alexander Acosta,
Respondent, v.
On Petitions for Review of the Orders of the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board. (15-038; 15-040; 16-014)
Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: January 9, 2020
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crisell Seguin, Petitioner Pro Se. Rebecca Azhdam, UNITED STATES DEPARTMEN T OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Emily Fabre Gomez, WILMERHALE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2 PER CURIAM:
Crisell Seguin petitions for review of orders from the United States Department of
Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) awarding her relief in her action seeking
whistleblower protection. Seguin has filed a motion to hold her petitions for review in
abeyance pending disposition by the Supreme Court of a petition for a writ of certiorari she
states she intends to file regarding our related decision in Northrop Grumman Systems
Corp. v. United States Department of Labor, 927 F.3d 226, 236 (4th Cir. 2019). Although
we “may . . . place a case in abeyance pending disposition of matters before this [c]ourt or
other courts which may affect the ultimate resolution of an appeal,” 4th Cir. R. 12(d), we
decline to do so here because the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari expired without
Seguin doing so. We therefore deny her motion for abeyance.
Additionally, in Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., “we grant[ed] Northrop’s
petitions for review, vacate[d] the orders of the ARB and the [administrative law judge
(ALJ),] and remand[ed] the case to the ALJ with instructions to dismiss Seguin’s
administrative complaint and enter judgment in favor of Northrop.” 924 F.3d at 236. Here,
each of Seguin’s challenges revolves around her original administrative complaint. In light
of the holding in our published decision, see id., Seguin’s petitions for review are moot.
Accordingly, we dismiss Seguin’s petitions for review. We also deny her motion to
appoint counsel and grant her motion to extend the time to file a reply. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crisell-seguin-v-us-department-of-labor-ca4-2020.