U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2012

Hudes v. Aetna Life Insurance

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 20, 2012 · Garland, Randolph, Williams

493 F. App'x 107

Counsel

Karen Hudes, Bethesda, MD, pro se., Bryan D. Bolton, Esquire, Michael Patrick Cunningham, Esquire, Funk & Bolton, PA, Baltimore, MD, Stanley James Reed, Esquire, Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered, Bethesda, MD, Jeffrey T. Green, David S. Petron, Sidley Austin LLP, Marc B. Dorfman, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Coles v. Howard University (District Court, District of Columbia 2023)
Abdelhady v. George Washington University (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
Abdelhady v. George Washington University (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
McCrea v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)
McCrea v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)
Perisic v. Kim (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
Lee-Thomas v. Labcorp, Laboratory Corp. of America (District Court, District of Columbia 2018)
Lee-Thomas v. Labcorp (D.C. Cir. 2018)
Mathews-Baker v. Reynolds & Assocs., Inc. (D.C. Cir. 2017)
Brown v. Hill (District Court, District of Columbia 2016)
Regnante v. Securities & Exchange Officials (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). The court has afforded full consideration to the issues presented and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons that follow, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

*108Karen Hudes brought a variety of state and federal claims against the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly known as the World Bank), KPMG LLP, Aetna Life Insurance Co., and Mark E. Schreiber. The district court dismissed all of these claims. See Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. et al., 806 F.Supp.2d 180, 186-96 (D.D.C. 2011). The only claims that Hudes properly reasserts on appeal are that the World Bank terminated her employment in violation of the whistleblower-protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. No. 111-208, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). We affirm the dismissal of those claims for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hudes, 806 F.Supp.2d at 189-91.

The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.CiR. Rule 41(a)(1).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.