Richard Cannon Erwin

In this case, North Carolina residents Timothy and Karla Slaughter sued Life Connection of Ohio (LCO), an Ohio organ procurement organization, alleging negligence in supplying a kidney that caused cancer after a transplant arranged through the national UNOS system. LCO moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing its contacts with North Carolina were too remote and accidental. The court denied the motion, finding that LCO's regular practice of procuring and sending organs to North Carolina recipients satisfied the state's long-arm statute and comported with due process because the contacts were purposeful, foreseeable, and the state had a strong interest in protecting its citizens' health.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff James Mallas seeking attorneys' fees after prevailing against the United States in a lawsuit alleging wrongful disclosure of tax information by the IRS. The court had previously awarded Mallas $73,000 in statutory damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 for the IRS's failure to note that his tax shelter fraud convictions had been reversed on appeal. In this opinion, the court granted in part Mallas's motion for attorneys' fees, awarding $47,931 in fees and $820 in expenses, after determining that he was the prevailing party whose position showed the government's actions were not substantially justified, and allocating fees based on the number of original plaintiffs and the intertwined nature of the claims. The reasoning focused on the requirements under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 for recovering litigation costs in tax proceedings.

taxesprocedure

The case involved the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and affiliated plaintiffs challenging provisions of North Carolina General Statute § 163-96(b) and related election laws that required notarized acknowledgments or sworn testimony to validate petition signatures for new political parties seeking ballot access, along with a five-cent fee per signature. Plaintiffs argued these requirements, along with other statutes on voter registration and party recognition, violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after reviewing stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment, declared the notarization alternatives and per-signature fee unconstitutional as applied to Chapter 163, enjoined their enforcement, granted summary judgment in part to both sides, and dismissed all other claims. The core reasoning centered on the statutes' burdens on minor parties' ballot access, including high invalidation rates and double fees, which lacked sufficient justification under constitutional standards. Topics include elections, free speech, and civil rights.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

This case involved a bankruptcy dispute where First Union National Bank and other lenders (the Bank Group) sought relief from the automatic stay to set off pre-petition credit card receivables from Brendle's Stores, Inc., which had filed for Chapter 11 protection. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, classifying the credit card slips as 'instruments' under North Carolina's UCC that required possession for a perfected security interest. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that credit card slips are not instruments because they are not negotiable, not securities, and not writings transferred by delivery in ordinary business practice. The court reasoned that contracts between merchants, issuers, and banks govern these transactions and make possession impractical, aligning with UCC policy and a Permanent Editorial Board recommendation to treat credit card receivables separately. As a result, the Bank Group was permitted to exercise setoff rights on the receivables in the suspense account.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., a shareholder sued the corporation alleging that its 1990 proxy statement, which sought approval for an amendment to a stock option plan allowing grants to employees and officers including the CEO, contained material omissions and misrepresentations about the compensation committee's prior recommendations and the plan's limits. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the proxy materials violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9. It reasoned that the undisclosed facts were material, that the proxies were obtained through deceptive disclosures, and that an essential causal link existed between the solicitation and the shareholder vote under the Mills analysis. The court rescinded the amendment, declared the stock grants null and void, and nullified the related proxies.

business & regulatory

This case involved music publishers and ASCAP members suing a bar owner for unauthorized public performances of four copyrighted songs in her establishment, the Starlite Bar & Lounge, on April 20, 1991, including via live band and jukebox without an ASCAP license despite repeated offers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment under the Copyright Act of 1976, awarding a reduced statutory minimum of $200 per infringement for a total of $800 in damages while denying attorney fees and declining to issue a permanent injunction at that time. The core reasoning was that the defendant infringed valid copyrights by permitting the performances without authorization, the jukebox was not exempt from licensing requirements because the bar charged for admission or music, and the defendant's conduct did not rise to bad faith or willfulness. The court noted that repeated unlicensed use would trigger an injunction and be deemed willful going forward.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Harold Gene Riley, a former Dow Corning employee terminated after 19 years for allegedly falsifying test results, who sued the company and several employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ERISA, and various state-law claims including wrongful discharge, malicious interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court had previously dismissed most claims but allowed Riley's bad faith discharge claim against Dow Corning and his malicious interference with contract claim against certain individual defendants to proceed. On the current motions, the court denies Dow Corning's requests for reconsideration or certification of an interlocutory appeal and denies Riley's motion to reconsider the dismissed ADEA and emotional distress claims, finding no new evidence or law warrants changing the prior rulings and that the remaining state claims satisfy the requirements for pendent jurisdiction. The court stands by its earlier decision that these surviving claims present factual issues for a jury rather than dismissal as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) suing Donaldson & Co., Inc., Invesco Services, Inc., and others under ERISA for allegedly participating in improper transfers of assets from two employee pension plans managed by RPC Corporation. The court granted summary judgment to Invesco Services, finding no fiduciary duty or knowing participation in any breach, and no unjust enrichment. It denied summary judgment to Donaldson & Co. due to factual questions about its role as a co-fiduciary and potential knowing participation in breaches of trust, and also denied PBGC's motion.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim of copyright infringement where U.S. Payphone, Inc. alleged that Executives Unlimited of Durham, Inc. copied a section on state tariffs from its copyrighted Payphone Magazine Reference Guide into its own Executive Manual without permission. On remand from the Fourth Circuit, the district court recalculated the profits attributable to the infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) to avoid double-counting with the actual damages award. The court determined that only 80 of the defendant's 6,609 sales overlapped with lost sales opportunities for the plaintiff, subtracted the corresponding profits, and applied a 40% factor for the contribution of the infringed section, resulting in an award of $20,020 in profits to the plaintiff plus interest. The original $15,000 actual damages award was left undisturbed as it had been affirmed on appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved John Love, a Hispanic male student, who sued Duke University after being terminated from its Biochemistry Ph.D. program in 1987, claiming the termination was due to race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and that the university breached a contract based on its bulletin regarding preliminary exam deadlines and procedures. The court granted Duke's motion for summary judgment on all three claims. It found that Love failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either federal statute, as he received the required notices and deadlines applied to his readmission status, and no evidence showed white students received different treatment or hearings. The court also held that the university bulletin did not create a binding contract, and even if it did, Duke did not obstruct Love's enforcement rights under Patterson v. McLean Credit Union.

civil rights

In Riley v. Dow Corning Corp., plaintiff Harold Gene Riley sued his former employer and several coworkers after being terminated in 1987 for allegedly failing to perform product tests and falsifying records, asserting nine claims including tortious interference with contract, libel and slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, negligence, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under the ADEA, unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA, and ERISA violations related to benefits information. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion as to the ERISA, age discrimination, FLSA, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and libel and slander claims, as well as certain defendants' motions on tortious interference and conspiracy, but denied it on the remaining issues. The rulings rested on findings that some claims lacked supporting evidence or were barred by legal standards such as justification for business interests, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or ineligibility for compensation, while others presented triable factual disputes.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Knight Medical, Inc., a Florida corporation, sued defendant Nihon Kohden America, Inc., a California corporation, for breach of a sales representation contract. The defendant moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to transfer it to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), citing a forum selection clause in the agreement that required litigation in courts in Los Angeles or Orange County, California. The court granted the motion to transfer without addressing the dismissal arguments. It reasoned that the action could have been brought in the transferee district, that forum selection clauses are generally enforceable under Supreme Court precedent, and that the plaintiff failed to show enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust given its acceptance of the clause without objection.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 1987 car-truck collision in North Carolina in which plaintiff Lyn Phillips was injured when defendant Raymond Smith, driving a tractor-trailer owned by Dallas Carrier Corporation (DCC), attempted to pass her vehicle by crossing a solid yellow line at an intersection. Plaintiffs sued Smith and DCC, moving for partial summary judgment on whether DCC was vicariously liable for Smith’s conduct under respondeat superior; defendants moved for partial summary judgment to bar punitive damages. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion, holding that Smith operated the truck under DCC’s ICC permit, direction, and control throughout the trip, making DCC responsible regardless of any leasing arrangement with a third party. The court denied defendants’ motion, ruling that the common-law punitive-damages framework satisfies due process under the standards set forth in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip because adequate jury instructions, trial-court review, and appellate review are available.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a review of an IRS jeopardy assessment against Maxine Y. White for federal income taxes on unreported embezzlement income from 1983-1987 after her conviction for embezzling over $250,000. The court determined that the assessment was reasonable under the circumstances and that the amount assessed was appropriate. The reasoning centered on White's embezzlement convictions and unreported income as justifying the assessment, along with the potential for her assets to be transferred or dissipated and the risk of insolvency due to restitution orders and other liabilities. The government met its burden on reasonableness by showing involvement in illegal activity and financial jeopardy factors, while White did not challenge the amount.

criminal lawtaxes

Plaintiff Annie Wall sued her employer AT&T Technologies, Inc., alleging racial discrimination in failing to promote her, racial harassment through coworker comments, sexual harassment in a hostile work environment, and retaliatory discharge after she complained to the EEOC and OFCCP about her conditions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the racial discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981, the racial harassment claims under both statutes, and the sexual harassment claim under Section 1981, finding insufficient evidence to support those allegations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the remaining claims, including sexual harassment under Title VII and retaliatory treatment and discharge, because disputes of material fact existed regarding whether AT&T had knowledge of the harassment and failed to address it, and whether the plaintiff's complaints led to adverse actions including her termination and forced return to work. The decision rested on the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, requiring the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and deny the motion where genuine issues of fact remained for trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from the death of a diabetic detainee in the Forsyth County jail, where the plaintiff alleged that jailers' refusal to administer insulin violated the decedent's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court was asked to decide in advance of trial whether damages should be measured under federal law or North Carolina's wrongful death statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-18-2). Applying 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the court found no federal statute governing damages in § 1983 wrongful death cases and therefore turned to state law. It held that the North Carolina statute is consistent with § 1983's policies of compensating injured parties and deterring official misconduct, as it allows both compensatory and punitive damages. The court therefore ruled that the state wrongful death statute governs the measure of damages in this action.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Cartledge, the defendant was stopped by a state trooper for allegedly failing to wear a seatbelt while driving on an interstate, after which the officer questioned him about weapons, seized a firearm, obtained consent to search, and discovered large amounts of cash in the vehicle; this led to a federal indictment for felon-in-possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant moved to suppress the evidence under the Fourth Amendment, contending that the stop was pretextual and that the trooper lacked a valid basis to initiate the encounter. The court granted the motion after a hearing, holding that North Carolina's mandatory seatbelt statute creates an evidentiary privilege barring use of seatbelt-violation evidence in any proceeding other than a seatbelt citation itself, that the citation here had been dismissed, and that federal evidentiary rules required respect for that state privilege when assessing the legality of the stop and subsequent search.

criminal lawprocedure

In Addison v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., former mechanics employed by Piedmont Aviation's fixed-base division sued their union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), under the Railway Labor Act for breaching its duty of fair representation during merger negotiations with USAir. They alleged the union failed to secure full pre-merger seniority credit for their fixed-base work while favoring other employee groups, and that Piedmont and USAir colluded with the union to impair their rights. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show the union's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The reasoning emphasized that the union treated the plaintiffs identically to nearly all other employees in the merger, securing them the seniority they were entitled to under the Allegheny/Mohawk provisions, and that prior litigation history did not establish a breach in this instance.

labor & employment

This case involved the EEOC suing J.P. Stevens & Co. on behalf of four employees at its North Carolina plant who were terminated after accumulating four unexcused absences for refusing to work mandatory Sundays due to their sincere religious beliefs as members of the Holiness sect. The court determined that three of the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII and that the company failed to reasonably accommodate those beliefs without undue hardship, such as by soliciting replacements rather than requiring the employees to do so or face discipline. The fourth plaintiff did not prevail because he failed to notify the company of his religious conflict. The court held that the terminations of the three plaintiffs violated Title VII and directed the parties to determine damages and injunctive relief.

labor & employmentreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, as trustee of terminated pension plans, suing Donaldson & Co. and Invesco Capital Management Co. under ERISA for their alleged knowing participation in unauthorized transfers of plan assets by company officers for corporate use. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they were not fiduciaries and that ERISA does not permit claims against non-fiduciaries for breaches of trust. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Donaldson, finding the complaint stated a cognizable claim based on Fourth Circuit precedent importing traditional trust law principles into ERISA, but granted the motion as to Invesco due to insufficient allegations of its knowledge of any breach; it also denied the venue transfer request.

labor & employmentfederal power