James Carroll Fox

In this case, plaintiff Tiffany Misel sued Green Tree Servicing, LLC under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and North Carolina Collection Agency Act, alleging that the defendant falsely reported and attempted to collect on a time-barred secondary mortgage debt after acquiring it from another entity. Green Tree moved to dismiss the state-law claim to the extent it was based on allegedly inaccurate credit reporting, arguing preemption by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court granted the motion, relying on Fourth Circuit precedent holding that the FCRA preempts state claims arising from such reporting. Separately, the court dismissed all claims against individual defendant Aaron Martin without prejudice for failure to effect timely service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned claims by severely hearing-impaired mother Tara Tyner and her live-in boyfriend Eric Williamson that the Brunswick County Department of Social Services and related state agencies discriminated against them on the basis of disability during a six-month child welfare investigation and subsequent removal of Tyner's two minor children. The investigation stemmed from reports by home health nurses about Williamson's alleged behavior toward the children; plaintiffs alleged repeated unannounced home entries, intrusive surveillance, and DSS's consistent refusal to provide American Sign Language interpreters despite multiple requests. The court addressed a motion to dismiss filed by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services along with several procedural motions concerning amendments to pleadings. It analyzed the facts under Title II of the ADA and forthcoming DOJ regulations requiring public entities to furnish auxiliary aids for effective communication with disabled individuals and their companions, construing certain allegations as relevant to damages rather than liability while allowing limited amendments to the pleadings.

civil rightsfamily law

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies over coverage obligations for a nurse practitioner named as a defendant in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Medical Mutual, which issued a claims-based professional liability policy, sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the nurse due to an exclusion for claims covered by prior insurance, while American Casualty, which issued an occurrence-based policy, counterclaimed to recover defense and indemnification costs it had paid. The court examined the policies' insuring agreements, exclusions, and "other insurance" clauses under North Carolina law. It considered precedents interpreting how such clauses interact when one policy is claims-made and the other is occurrence-based, noting that North Carolina courts focus on specific policy language rather than the placement of clauses within the policy. The matter was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff Pauline Alexander's claims that her former employer QVC Distribution Center terminated her employment because of her breast cancer diagnosis in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or alternatively failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, along with related discrimination or retaliation claims under the Family Medical Leave Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment after the court had dismissed claims against an individual defendant, and the parties briefed the issues following discovery. The court reviewed the facts of plaintiff's packer position, her multiple medical leaves exceeding 182 days under company policy, the requirement for a fitness-for-duty certification to return to work, and the pre-2008 ADA standards requiring evidence that a condition substantially limited a major life activity.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved claims by Mexican nationals admitted as H-2B temporary workers at Frog Island Seafood's crab processing plant, alleging violations of the FLSA and NCWHA through unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions from pay for replacement knives, improper rent collection for company housing, and failure to reimburse travel and visa costs. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on liability under the FLSA, NCWHA, and breach of contract, along with class certification, while defendants cross-moved to dismiss most claims except specific deduction and rent issues. The court examined the procedural history of conditional FLSA collective action certification, the terms of DOL-approved clearance orders, and facts about wage practices and housing registration to resolve the cross-motions for partial summary judgment.

labor & employmentimmigrationprocedure

This case involved a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by record label plaintiffs against defendant Jocelyn Gaines, alleging that she willfully used an online media distribution system to download, distribute, and make available ten copyrighted sound recordings without authorization. After the defendant was properly served but failed to respond, the court entered default against her. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, finding that the admitted facts established ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized copying, which constituted infringement under the Copyright Act. As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement and ordering destruction of unauthorized copies, awarded $7,500 in statutory damages ($750 per work), and granted $420 in costs.

propertyprocedure

This case is an appeal by SunTrust Bank from a bankruptcy court order authorizing debtor Marcus Edwards Development, LLC to obtain post-petition financing from Capital Bank under 11 U.S.C. § 364(d), with Capital Bank receiving a priming first-priority lien on real estate subdivisions where SunTrust held existing secured interests via deeds of trust and letters of credit. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, focusing on whether SunTrust's interests received adequate protection through equity cushions and other measures. The bankruptcy court had granted the financing motion after hearings, but the district court found deficiencies in the order's calculations, including incomplete valuations of other developments, incorrect amounts for letters of credit, and lack of provisions ensuring release of SunTrust's obligations. As a result, the district court vacated the Financing Order authorizing the Capital Bank loan and lien.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for the alleged negligence of Marine Corps officers in returning a vehicle containing government-owned ether to a private who was known to abuse the substance. The plaintiffs claimed that the officers' actions proximately caused a fatal car accident when the private became intoxicated and drove the wrong way on a highway. The government moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were barred by the FTCA's assault and battery exception and the public duty doctrine, which they contended eliminated any duty owed by the government. The court analyzed whether subject matter jurisdiction existed and whether a duty could be established under North Carolina tort law for negligent entrustment or special relationships.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case is a proposed class action under federal securities laws in which plaintiffs alleged that HydroFlo, Inc. and certain officers and directors issued materially false and misleading press releases between July and October 2005, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement for $425,000, which the court preliminarily approved, but the defendants failed to pay the settlement amount as required. Lead plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement, and the court granted the motion after determining that the stipulation constitutes a binding contract under general principles of contract law. The court ordered the defendants to pay the full $425,000 in cash within ten business days and resolved related procedural motions, including allowing an enlarged reply brief and adjourning certain deadlines, while denying a request for attorneys' fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Vernon Guion, an African-American employee at the Naval Air Depot, sued the Secretary of the Navy under Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation for prior EEOC complaints. The claims centered on a permanent reassignment to a lower position in June 2004, an AWOL memorandum for May 25, 2004, and being placed on LWOP for two other dates. The district court granted the Navy's motion for summary judgment, finding that Guion failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because he did not show that similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably or that the Navy's legitimate reasons were pretextual. On the retaliation claim, the court held there was no causal connection, as two of the supervisors lacked knowledge of the protected activity and the time gap between the activity and the adverse actions was too long to infer retaliation. The court also denied Guion's related motion for disclosure as moot.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a physician whose medical staff privileges at Pitt County Memorial Hospital were suspended in 2005 and later made permanent after hearings and reviews for alleged noncompliance with conditions and other issues. The plaintiff filed suit asserting a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process, along with state-law claims for breach of contract and defamation against the hospital and two physicians. The court dismissed the § 1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) by adopting its reasoning from a prior related action that found no viable due process violation. With the federal claim eliminated, the court then dismissed the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and Rule 12(b)(1). The plaintiff's motion to stay discovery was denied as moot.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

This case involved a physician whose medical staff privileges were temporarily suspended by Pitt County Memorial Hospital (PCMH) after allegations of falsifying records and failing to properly examine patients; the doctor sued the hospital and various physicians under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law claims. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. It held that PCMH's conduct was not fairly attributable to the state because, although the hospital had been transferred from public to private nonprofit status under North Carolina law with some ongoing county oversight, it was not created by special statute and lacked sufficient governmental entwinement to qualify as a state actor under the Lebron test or related precedents. The § 1981 claim was dismissed because national-origin discrimination is not actionable under that statute, and the remaining state-law claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

This case involved a challenge by firearms dealers operating as Shooter’s Choice to the ATF’s revocation of their federal firearms license for multiple violations of the Gun Control Act, including failures to timely record firearm acquisitions and dispositions, to conduct required NICS background checks before transfers, and to report multiple sales of handguns. The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the revocation, and denied the petitioners’ motion for an evidentiary hearing. The decision rested on undisputed evidence that the petitioners had received clear instructions on the legal requirements shortly after obtaining the license but repeatedly failed to comply, establishing willfulness under the statute as indifference to known obligations. A single willful violation is sufficient to support revocation, and the court found no genuine issue of material fact requiring further proceedings.

gunscriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved the U.S. government's effort to enforce a restitution order of over $6 million against defendant Lazorwitz, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy, securities fraud, and money laundering, by garnishing his monthly pension benefits from the IBM Personal Pension Plan under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. The court granted the government's motion for a writ of continuing garnishment, allowing seizure of 100% of the defendant's anticipated pension payments of about $839 per month despite the plan's objections. The core reasoning was that 18 U.S.C. § 3613 expressly permits enforcement of restitution judgments against all property notwithstanding other federal laws, including ERISA's anti-alienation provision at 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) and related tax code protections, as Congress had provided the necessary exception to prior Supreme Court precedent like Guidry. The court also rejected challenges to the garnishee's identity and venue, finding the writ properly issued in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a longstanding school desegregation lawsuit filed in 1965 against the Franklin County Board of Education, in which plaintiffs and the government challenged the district's compliance with prior court orders on issues including staff desegregation, quality of education, and student assignment. After the court partially denied the Board's motion for unitary status in 2002 and approved a 2003 consent decree addressing remaining areas, plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The court held that plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to fees, rejecting the Board's arguments that its difficult financial condition or the court's directive to file the motion to dismiss constituted special circumstances justifying denial of an award. The reasoning relied on precedents establishing that a defendant's ability to pay is not a special circumstance and that § 1988 fee awards are available even when defendants are public entities responding to court instructions.

civil rights

In Womack v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the plaintiff, a member of a certified class in the earlier Morgan v. UPS case alleging race discrimination in pay, promotions, and working conditions under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, filed his own complaint after the Morgan court granted summary judgment on the class claims in 2000 and entered final judgment in 2002. UPS moved to dismiss, arguing that Womack’s EEOC charge filed in 2003 and his complaint were untimely under Title VII’s exhaustion rules and § 1981’s statute of limitations. The court held that the class action tolled the limitations periods until the Morgan court’s June 2000 summary judgment order on the class claims, after which Womack’s filing was late for pre-2000 conduct but timely for later claims; it therefore denied the motion to dismiss while limiting the surviving claims to those arising after July 17, 2000, and ordered further briefing on the Title VII filing window.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a motion by claimant Jack A. Jarboe, who was injured while working aboard a dredging vessel, to increase the limitation fund in Norfolk Dredging Company’s admiralty action under Supplemental Rule F(7) by including the value of the company’s entire fleet and equipment used in the project. Jarboe relied on the flotilla doctrine from Standard Dredging Co. v. Kristiansen to argue that the full fleet should be surrendered due to his employment relationship with the shipowner. The court analyzed relevant precedents, including Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, and concluded that the flotilla doctrine applies only when vessels are operated as a single unit under common ownership and contribute to the injury, with no automatic expansion based on a master-servant relationship. Finding no competent evidence in the record that any vessels other than Derrick #4 were involved in or contributed to Jarboe’s injury, the court denied the motion to increase the fund without prejudice. The opinion also addressed requirements for stipulations if Jarboe seeks to dissolve the injunction staying his related Jones Act suit.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns a homeowner's lawsuit against his flood insurer, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance, after Hurricane Floyd damaged his property in 1999. The plaintiff alleged breach of his Standard Flood Insurance Policy for improperly deducting depreciation from the payout despite meeting the 80% replacement cost threshold, and he also brought a state-law claim under North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for the insurer's handling of the claim. The insurer moved to dismiss only the extra-contractual UDTPA claim, arguing that the National Flood Insurance Act and regulations preempt state-law claims in this area. The court reviewed preemption principles, rejected field preemption of the entire flood-insurance field, and examined whether the specific state claim conflicted with federal requirements of strict policy compliance, finding that good-faith claims handling could coexist with those requirements.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Goleta National Bank and Ace Cash Express seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court to block North Carolina officials from enforcing state usury, consumer finance, check casher, and unfair trade practices laws against Ace's payday lending operations, on grounds of preemption under the National Bank Act and related federal claims. The court dismissed the federal action in full. It applied Younger abstention to Ace's claims because the requested relief would interfere with an ongoing parallel state enforcement proceeding and the preemption issues were not facially conclusive, and it held that Goleta lacked standing to challenge enforcement actions directed solely at Ace.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved the EEOC's lawsuit against the News & Observer Publishing Company, alleging that the newspaper violated Title VII by terminating employee Timothy Wilkins because of his religious beliefs, which included views that homosexuality is sinful and that individuals could change through faith in Christ. Wilkins, a direct sales supervisor, had shared these beliefs with supervisors and others through letters, articles, and a speech at a Southern Baptist conference, after which his performance evaluations declined and he engaged in disputes over work instructions, leading to his suspension and firing for insubordination. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. It reasoned that the record contained no evidence that Wilkins' religious views played a determinative role in the termination decision, as the newspaper's stated reasons centered on performance and insubordination issues that arose independently, and Wilkins failed to show those reasons were pretextual or influenced by discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employmentreligious liberty