Jerome B. Friedman

The case involves numerous produce suppliers who sold goods on credit to Let-Us Produce but were not paid, seeking to enforce statutory trust rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) against the defendant's assets, with SunTrust Bank intervening as a secured creditor. Pursuant to a prior consent order setting up a claims procedure, the plaintiffs moved for interim distribution of funds from the company's operating account. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, while resolving key legal disputes over claim validity. The court's reasoning centered on PACA's statutory and regulatory requirements for preserving trust benefits, including the effects of payment term modifications and notice obligations, to determine which claims qualified for priority protection.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff employee who was injured while working and who received benefits under both the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act and the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act; he brought a tort suit against his employer in state court, which the defendant removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Act barred the plaintiff’s federal maritime tort claim arising under admiralty jurisdiction. After supplemental briefing on the benefits received and the application processes, the court denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that the claim was a federal maritime tort not precluded by state workers’ compensation exclusivity rules due to federal supremacy and the minimal state interest involved. The court certified the controlling legal question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because of substantial grounds for difference of opinion and stayed further proceedings.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a commercial lease dispute in which Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. sued its landlord, Norcor Bolingbrook Associates, LLC, for overcharges on common area maintenance expenses and related calculations. After the court granted Dollar Tree summary judgment and awarded compensatory damages, Dollar Tree filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest pursuant to the lease agreement. The court granted the motion in full, awarding $415,043.50 in attorney’s fees and $53,982.13 in prejudgment interest. It determined the fee request was reasonable under the lodestar method, supported by detailed affidavits on market rates and hours worked, and that prejudgment interest was appropriate given the nature of the overcharges. The decision followed established Fourth Circuit standards for evaluating fee awards and case law supporting interest on wrongfully withheld funds.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a motion to dismiss a 2009 indictment charging defendant Juan Adalverto Vega-Pena, a Salvadoran national, with reentry of a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) after his 1989 deportation and 1992 illegal reentry. The court granted the motion, finding the five-year statute of limitations had expired. The core reasoning was that federal immigration officials had actual knowledge of the defendant's identity, presence, and illegal status by at least 2003 through his Temporary Protected Status applications and fingerprint records in his immigration file, making the offense a continuing one that was "found" more than five years before the March 2009 indictment.

immigrationcriminal law

In this case, defendant Esteban Venancio-Dominguez, who had pleaded guilty to reentry of a deported alien and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), sought to vacate his identity theft conviction after the Supreme Court's decision in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, which held that the statute requires proof the defendant knew the identification belonged to another person. The court construed the defendant's pro se motion, originally filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although the defendant had procedurally defaulted by not raising the issue on appeal, the court found he could proceed by showing actual innocence. Because the plea record contained no evidence of the required knowledge and the government conceded it could not prove that element under the new interpretation, the court held Flores-Figueroa applies retroactively and vacated the conviction for Count 3.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former Regent University law student who was disciplined after posting an image of Chancellor Pat Robertson appearing to make an obscene gesture on Facebook and the school's internal email list, which administrators viewed as violating conduct rules against profane behavior. The student sued Robertson and the university on claims including free speech and religious liberty violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promissory estoppel. The court denied the plaintiff's requests for more time or to file extra briefs, struck his untimely opposition, and granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice. It reasoned that the defendants' facts were unopposed and that the claims lacked evidentiary support or were not valid causes of action under Virginia or Texas law.

free speechreligious libertycivil rightsprocedure

Hampton University sued the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), alleging that ACPE violated its own procedures and common-law due process by placing the university's pharmacy school on probation without adequate prior notice, concrete compliance standards, a meaningful hearing, or an appeal process, and that ACPE thereby violated federal due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hampton sought a preliminary injunction barring ACPE from publicizing the probation, requiring fair quantitative faculty standards, rescinding probation, and preventing revocation of accreditation. The court denied the motion, concluding that although the balance of harms tipped in Hampton's favor and serious questions existed on the merits of the due-process claims, the public interest in maintaining accreditation standards and the case's specific facts outweighed those considerations.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a fatal car accident in which Mabel Holloway crashed into a City of Suffolk garbage truck that employees had parked in the roadway, leading her estate's administrator to sue the city and an employee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violations (including a state-created danger theory) as well as state-law negligence claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the federal claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and remanded the case to state court. It reasoned that the evidence did not establish a constitutional violation because the employees' conduct did not create a danger from a third party or amount to deliberate indifference, and that ordinary negligence or gross negligence by government actors does not rise to the level of a due process violation. The court also noted that without an underlying constitutional injury, the claims against the city for policy or training failures could not proceed.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This opinion addresses MicroStrategy's motion to stay the dissolution of a permanent injunction that had barred Business Objects from using or possessing a 2000-2001 Competitive Recipe document allegedly misappropriated in violation of the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The court had previously dissolved the injunction after finding the nine-year-old document was no longer a trade secret because its information was stale and lacked ongoing economic value. The court grants the stay pending appeal, concluding that MicroStrategy could face irreparable harm from disclosure of the document, Business Objects would incur only minimal additional burden from continued confidentiality, and the public interest supports preserving the status quo until the appeal concludes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff, acting as assignee and trustee for a former automobile dealership, filing suit against General Motors Corporation, GMAC LLC, and Motors Insurance Corporation following prior state and federal litigation involving the dealership. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds including res judicata, failure to state a claim, and lack of standing. The court granted the motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Other pending motions were denied as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a dispute over a telecommunications services agreement between Hipage, a Virginia freight shipping company, and Access2Go, an Illinois-based provider, after Hipage's IT director signed documents containing a forum selection clause requiring any related lawsuits to be brought exclusively in Illinois state or federal court. Hipage filed a declaratory judgment action in Virginia state court seeking to invalidate the contract, which Access2Go removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for improper venue. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), holding that the clause was valid and enforceable under federal law and that venue was therefore improper in Virginia. The decision rested on the parties' contractual agreement to litigate only in Illinois courts, with no findings of fraud or other grounds to invalidate the clause.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Farideh Bayat, a lawful permanent resident from Iran whose naturalization application was denied due to a 1995 state conviction for grand larceny, classified as an aggravated felony under immigration law. Bayat filed a petition in federal court seeking a writ of error coram nobis to vacate her state conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the writ of coram nobis is unavailable to challenge state court convictions in federal court and the All Writs Act does not extend jurisdiction to such matters.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involves a dispute over whether a commercial general liability insurance policy covers a nightclub owner's defense and indemnity in a state court lawsuit arising from a shooting at the venue during a concert. The plaintiff nightclub sought a declaratory judgment that the policy applied and damages for breach of contract after the insurer repeatedly denied coverage based on an assault and battery exclusion. The court granted the insurer's cross-motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion, applying the eight corners rule to compare the policy language with the underlying complaint. It held that the negligence claims, including those for premises liability and failure to warn, fell squarely within the policy's assault and battery exclusion, which explicitly addressed such conduct.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a long-term at-will distributorship between Brunckhorst, the national distributor of Boar's Head deli products, and Coastal Atlantic, a former distributor, which ended when Brunckhorst stopped shipments citing product issues; Brunckhorst then sued Coastal for trademark infringement, Lanham Act violations, and unpaid goods, prompting Coastal's counterclaims for fraud, tortious interference, business conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the counterclaim defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Its core reasoning was that the parties had an at-will relationship terminable for any reason without written agreement or definite duration, that fraud claims lacked particularity and any actionable misrepresentation, that no independent tort duties or good-faith obligations existed apart from contract claims under Virginia law, and that the remaining allegations failed to state viable claims for relief.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement dispute between MercExchange and eBay over the '265 patent, following prior appeals to the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court on issues including the standard for permanent injunctions. The district court considered MercExchange's motion to certify the judgment as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), along with eBay's motions to file a supplemental answer, require a bond, obtain judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on willfulness and validity, and related procedural requests. The court granted certification of the judgment on the '265 patent after finding no just reason for delay in finality and denied all of eBay's motions, concluding that eBay failed to show grounds for altering prior rulings, applying new precedents retroactively, or warranting additional proceedings at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved eBay's motion for attorneys' fees on the '176 patent after the Federal Circuit reversed a jury's finding of willful infringement and held the patent invalid due to anticipation by the Keller article. The district court denied the motion. The court reasoned that defendants failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that MercExchange acted in bad faith when pursuing its infringement claim, as the existence of the prior art and reversal on validity did not establish the exceptional circumstances required under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for fee-shifting in patent cases. The court emphasized that such awards are discretionary and limited to instances of unfairness or bad faith by the losing party.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Santana, the defendant faced an initial indictment on methamphetamine and money laundering charges and moved for a mistrial after a witness mentioned cocaine during trial; the court granted the mistrial over the government's objection, leading to a superseding indictment that added cocaine distribution counts and other charges. The defendant then moved to dismiss the superseding indictment under the vindictive prosecution doctrine, arguing the new charges were retaliatory, and alternatively to sever the cocaine counts. The court denied both motions, finding no realistic likelihood of vindictiveness because the government provided objective justifications including that the added charges involved conduct from the same time period and geographic area, and that joinder was proper due to the logical relationship among the offenses. The decision emphasized that the prosecutor has broad discretion to add charges supported by probable cause absent evidence of improper motive.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former employee suing his employer and a related LLC for breach of contract and an equitable lien to recover commissions allegedly owed for work identifying and negotiating land acquisitions in Virginia. After the plaintiff recorded a lis pendens on the property, the defendants took limited actions in state court to release it by posting a bond and filing a demurrer targeted only at the lien claim, which they later withdrew. The defendants then removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand on grounds that the state court actions waived the right to remove. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the defendants' conduct did not demonstrate a clear intent to litigate the merits in state court and thus did not constitute waiver under the applicable standard.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Sentara Hospitals suing Maxim Healthcare Services for indemnification under a 1996 staffing contract after Sentara paid a settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a patient's fall at a hospital where a Maxim nurse allegedly failed to address a wet floor. The hospital that originally contracted with Maxim had merged into Sentara, and Maxim argued that Sentara could not enforce the contract's indemnification provisions as a non-party to the original agreement. The court denied Maxim's motion for summary judgment, ruling that under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act and the terms of the 2002 plan of merger, the surviving corporation inherited and could enforce the pre-merger contractual rights and obligations, including indemnification claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerns MercExchange's renewed request for a permanent injunction against eBay after a jury found willful infringement of MercExchange's '265 patent (and related disputes over the '051 and '176 patents), following remand from the Supreme Court. The district court denied the injunction motion and granted in part the motion to stay proceedings, severing the '265 and '051 matters, staying only the '051 proceedings, and allowing the '265 case to continue. The core reasoning applied the traditional four-factor equitable test for injunctive relief, emphasizing MercExchange's willingness to license rather than practice its patents, the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm, the availability of monetary damages, and new factual developments including non-final PTO reexamination actions indicating potential invalidity due to obviousness.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure