Eugene Andrew Gordon

In Iturbe v. Wandel & Goltermann, Technologies, Inc., a Chilean-born employee sued her former employer after being terminated from a North Carolina manufacturing plant, alleging Title VII discrimination along with state-law claims for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The defendant moved to dismiss the state claims and the request for attorneys' fees. The court granted dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim, finding that North Carolina's employment-at-will doctrine barred enforcement of a promise of continuing employment absent additional consideration recognized under state precedent, and also dismissed the standalone attorneys'-fees claim because no statutory authority supported recovery on the state claims. The court denied dismissal of the wrongful-discharge claim, holding that the plaintiff had adequately alleged termination in violation of the company's written layoff policy that prioritized job performance and seniority, which could constitute the bad-faith discharge recognized in Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves the executors of John Hill's estate suing Montclaire Housing Partners, Tricap, and Shelby Kaplan under the North Carolina Securities Act for rescission of Hill's 1985 purchase of 450 limited partnership units, claiming the unregistered securities were not exempt from registration, involved material misstatements or omissions, and constituted fraud; defendants counterclaimed for payment on a $350,000 promissory note executed as part of the purchase, with multiple intervenors asserting interests in the note after its assignment. The matter came before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment following removal from state court. The court analyzed whether the preliminary offering to Hill should be integrated with the subsequent offering under the factors from Securities Act Release No. 33-4552, concluding the offerings were part of a single plan with common characteristics that precluded exemption from registration, and addressed defenses including estoppel and waiver under the state securities statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an appeal by National Westminster Bank USA challenging a bankruptcy court order that approved the Chapter 7 trustee's retention of the law firm Ross & Hardies as special counsel to pursue a lender liability claim against the Bank on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of RPC Corporation. The firm had been representing Walter Ross, RPC's former CEO and personal guarantor on the Bank's loans, in related litigation in New York, and Ross had agreed to fund the firm's work for the estate under a contingency arrangement. The Bank objected on grounds of potential conflicts of interest arising from the firm's dual representation and Ross's status as a purported secured creditor. The district court affirmed the order, holding that the firm held no interest adverse to the estate, that Ross was an unsecured creditor entitled only to pro rata distribution, and that the arrangement served the estate's best interests because the trustee would control any settlement and other potential claims against Ross had been investigated and were time-barred.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a former retail employee who sued her employer after her manager allegedly sexually harassed her through non-consensual touching and suggestive comments, leading to her departure from the job. She brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery (against both the manager and employer), plus negligence and wrongful discharge against the employer. After the employee voluntarily dismissed her claims against the manager with prejudice, the court granted summary judgment to the employer on the emotional distress, battery, and wrongful discharge claims, finding no independent liability and that the discharge did not fit an exception to North Carolina's at-will employment doctrine. The court denied summary judgment on the negligent retention claim, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the employer knew or should have known of the manager's conduct.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycivil rights

This case concerned a dispute over $10,638 in cash seized during a 1987 drug raid in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where local police found cocaine and weapons, leading to state charges against Robert Alston that were later dismissed. After the DEA adopted the seizure for federal administrative forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881, the state superior court issued orders directing return of the cash to Alston, prompting the United States to seek declaratory relief against conflicting state orders. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and Police Department, holding that the Police Department holds clear title. The core reasoning was that the federal government's adoption of the seizure established exclusive federal jurisdiction from the date of the original seizure under 28 U.S.C. § 1355, depriving state courts of authority to order disposition of the res.

criminal lawfederal powerproperty

The case involves a §1983 civil rights action brought by Ronald Reagan against Deputy Sheriff Sammy Hampton and Sheriff Paul McCrary, alleging that Hampton used excessive force without probable cause during an incident at a private party, violating Reagan's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that McCrary negligently or recklessly failed to supervise Hampton, creating a policy or custom of such conduct. After the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several claims, the court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment, focusing on whether the claim against Hampton was timely under the applicable statute of limitations and whether Reagan presented sufficient evidence to establish liability against McCrary. The court analyzed the Supreme Court's directive in Wilson v. Garcia to borrow the state's personal injury statute of limitations for §1983 claims, noting complications in North Carolina due to multiple such statutes, and emphasized that §1983 liability requires more than negligent conduct by a supervisor. It concluded that summary judgment was appropriate on both the timeliness issue for Hampton and the lack of evidence for McCrary's liability under the applicable standards.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Simms Investment Company's motion to reconsider the dismissal of its claim under the Colorado Securities Act in a securities transaction dispute with defendants E.F. Hutton & Co. The court had initially dismissed the claim based on a perceived conflict of laws issue but granted reconsideration, reinstating Count II while denying the defendants' request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions. The core reasoning was that overlapping state securities laws do not create a traditional conflict of laws problem, as multiple states' Blue Sky laws can apply to a single transaction to protect their respective interests in purchasers and issuers, provided there is a sufficient territorial nexus; here, the allegations that the offer or acceptance occurred in Colorado satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Colorado act.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Simms Investment Company suing E.F. Hutton and A.L. & E. Operating Company over alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the sale of an interest in a Colorado oil and gas joint venture, with claims including violations of the Colorado Securities Act of 1981. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss the Colorado securities claims. It determined that North Carolina substantive law applies under choice-of-law principles because the plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation, learned of the venture through meetings there, signed the agreement there, and made payment to Hutton's North Carolina office, giving that state the most significant relationship to the transaction. The court therefore dismissed the Colorado law claims under Rule 12(b)(6) while granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to assert claims under North Carolina securities statutes.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Bonnie Hageman suing defendant Twin City Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act over representations made about early termination of a car lease. After a jury trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the unfair trade practices claim. The plaintiff alleged that a post-contract statement by the defendant's employee—that she could return the vehicle early if mileage was high—deviated from the written lease terms and amounted to a deceptive practice. The court reasoned that the evidence did not support a jury issue on this claim, as the representation occurred after the lease was signed without inducing the contract, and did not meet the standards for unfair or deceptive conduct under the statute.

business & regulatory

The case involved an appeal by Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina, Inc., a nonprofit organization, from a bankruptcy court decision denying its application for attorney fees under 11 U.S.C. § 330 for services provided to a Chapter 7 debtor. The bankruptcy court had ruled against the fees primarily because Legal Aid had not filed a compensation agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 329, expressed doubts about nonprofits recovering fees, and found the application insufficiently documented. On de novo review, the district court reversed, holding that nonprofit status does not bar fee recovery, that disclosing the lack of any payment agreement satisfied § 329(a), and that the application sufficiently detailed the six hours of work performed. The court awarded Legal Aid the remaining $234.60 in the estate.

procedure

In Ecos, Inc. v. Brinegar, environmental groups and the Crest Street community challenged a proposed East-West Freeway in Durham, North Carolina, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, parkland protection statutes, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties ultimately entered a 1982 consent judgment that permitted modified highway construction with mitigation measures, dissolved a prior injunction, and dismissed the claims. Crest Street later moved for relief from judgment to pursue attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after its separate fee action was rejected by the Supreme Court. The court denied the motion, holding that Section 1988 does not create an independent cause of action for fees and that the unsuccessful separate lawsuit was not a proceeding to enforce the listed civil rights statutes.

environmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff James Geiger, a tank repairman, was injured when volunteer firefighters from the defendant association attempted to rescue him after he was overcome by gasoline vapors inside a storage tank; the rope slipped during the lift, causing him to fall. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that its liability was limited by N.C.G.S. § 69-39.1, governmental immunity, workers' compensation rules, and the plaintiff's employer's negligence. The court held that the statute did not apply because no fire was reported or suppressed, but governmental immunity capped the defendant's potential liability at $300,000; it denied the motion in all other respects, finding that issues such as negligence and last clear chance could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record. The reasoning rested on a strict reading of the statute's text requiring a reported fire and on established North Carolina principles of governmental immunity for municipal functions like fire and rescue services.

torts & liability

Burlington Industries sued Samjens Partners I, Asher Edelman, Dominion Textile, and others after they disclosed ownership of Burlington stock and launched a tender offer to acquire control, alleging violations of federal securities laws through the misuse of confidential inside information from a former Burlington executive, materially false SEC filings, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act due to reduced competition in the U.S. denim market, along with related state-law claims. The court evaluated Burlington's motion for a preliminary injunction under the four-factor test of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest. It granted the injunction in part, barring continuation of the tender offer, further acquisitions via tender offer, new tender offers, and disclosure of inside information, while denying relief as to pre-tender conduct or voting rights on already-owned shares; the ruling rested primarily on the likelihood that defendants had used inside information in violation of sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. The court required a $500 million bond and noted that antitrust issues appeared viable but did not form the basis for the injunction granted.

business & regulatory

The case involves a French corporation, 'In' Porters, SA, suing Hanes Printables, Inc., a US company, and its parent over claims of antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, unfair trade practices under North Carolina law, breach of an exclusive distributorship contract, and interference with that contract. The dispute arose from Hanes terminating the distributorship after the plaintiff had ceased dealing with other manufacturers and from another distributor invading the plaintiff's French territory. The court dismissed the antitrust claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and the unfair trade claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), while retaining the contract and interference claims. The core reasoning was that the alleged conduct and injuries occurred entirely in France with no substantial effect on US or North Carolina commerce, placing the claims outside the extraterritorial reach of the federal antitrust laws and the state unfair trade statute.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Theard v. United States Army, pro se plaintiff Sandra J. Theard, a black female civilian KP worker employed by the Army in Germany under a dependents' hiring policy, alleged that she was retaliatorily discharged for complaining about management abuses including waste and discrimination, discriminatorily denied promotions and discharged due to her race and sex, and denied procedural due process when her dependency status was revoked following marital separation. The Army moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of jurisdiction over whistleblower claims, and sovereign immunity. The court dismissed the CSRA retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims of retaliatory and discriminatory discharge because no genuine issue existed as to whether the Army would have discharged her absent her complaints and protected status, dismissed the due process claim on sovereign immunity grounds and because she had no protected entitlement to continued employment as an excepted-service employee, and set the remaining promotion-denial claim for an evidentiary hearing on whether the 30-day EEO counseling deadline should be extended due to the Army's alleged failure to notify her of the requirement.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Gunther Forstmann suing defendants Robert Culp and Culp, Inc. over claims arising from a 1985 meeting to discuss the potential purchase of a textile business, Baxter-Kelly, Inc. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, fraud, and RICO violations based on asserted agreements for compensation, management employment, and an ownership interest. Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court granted the motion on all claims, holding there was no meeting of the minds on essential contract terms like salary, insufficient evidence to support the remaining theories, and no pattern of racketeering activity.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedurecriminal law

In Currie v. United States, the plaintiff sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a VA patient with PTSD shot and killed an IBM employee and wounded others; the suit alleged negligence by VA psychotherapists in failing to involuntarily commit the patient or adequately warn his employer despite known threats. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the facts did not support liability. It reasoned that North Carolina law requires both dangerousness and mental illness for involuntary commitment, that the psychotherapists' good-faith professional judgment that the patient was not mentally ill shielded them from liability under a psychotherapist judgment rule, and that their actions therefore could not be deemed negligent.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power

This case involved a long-term Exxon distributor, L.C. Williams Oil Co., suing Exxon after the company terminated its franchise agreement in 1984. Williams alleged that Exxon unfairly denied access to a closer terminal, leading to increased costs, and that its subsequent termination for misbranding violated North Carolina unfair trade practices law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and the duty of good faith under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-1-102(3), following an earlier partial ruling against Williams on federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act claims. The court granted Exxon’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining state-law counts, finding no genuine issues of material fact that would support the claims after reviewing the record, including evidence of Williams’s admitted misbranding and the contractual terms. The decision rested on the absence of disputed facts regarding Exxon’s actions and the lack of support for allegations of anticompetitive or bad-faith conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an airline pilot who worked as a replacement during an ALPA strike at Wien Air Alaska and later alleged that ALPA breached its duty of fair representation by pressuring his subsequent employer Piedmont to remove him from flight status as retaliation for crossing picket lines. After prior rulings dismissed state claims and addressed statute of limitations issues (later reversed on appeal as to ALPA), the court considered ALPA's renewed motion for summary judgment on the remaining DFR claim and attorney fees. The court denied the motion, concluding that the plaintiff might establish entitlement to fees under the common benefit exception to the American Rule because successful litigation could vindicate rights shared by union members.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff L.C. Williams Oil Co., a petroleum distributor, sued defendant Exxon Corp. after Exxon terminated their distributor agreements, alleging wrongful termination under the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) and related state claims. The court granted Exxon's motion for partial summary judgment on the PMPA claim, finding the termination lawful because Williams had sold non-Exxon gasoline at an Exxon-branded retail outlet without proper deidentification, violating the agreements and PMPA requirements. The decision rested on undisputed facts from an investigation showing mixed petroleum sources at the station, which justified termination regardless of other issues like growth restrictions or supply disputes. The court separately held that the PMPA does not preempt Williams' North Carolina unfair trade practices claims, retaining those for adjudication under diversity jurisdiction and mooting the request for injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure