This case involves the United States seeking an ex parte pre-trial restraining order under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e) to preserve assets potentially subject to criminal forfeiture in a prosecution for bank fraud and conspiracy. The court granted the motion and issued a detailed order freezing specified real property, businesses, bank accounts, and other assets, appointing the U.S. Marshals Service to oversee operations, and requiring the defendants to repatriate any foreign assets derived from the alleged conduct. The core reasoning is that the grand jury's indictment establishes probable cause sufficient for the order, which is mandatory once requested to prevent dissipation of directly forfeitable property and substitute assets alike, with third-party rights to be addressed in ancillary post-trial proceedings under § 853(n).
This case involves the death of Ryan Meyers, who had bipolar disorder, during a police response to a family fight at his home where he was armed with a baseball bat. His parents sued Baltimore County police officers and the department, claiming excessive force from multiple Taser deployments used to subdue him. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the officers' use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the circumstances, including the immediate threat posed by the armed and resisting individual, the need to disarm him, and the progression of his resistance during the encounter.
This case involves the government's motion to modify a pre-indictment protective order under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(B) to restrain additional assets traceable to fraud proceeds and to require the defendant to deliver certain property to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court determined there was probable cause that three bank accounts, luxury purchases from stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Prada, and specific diamond jewelry items were traceable to an account holding $8.4 million in fraud proceeds and thus forfeitable. Evidence indicated the defendant had violated prior restraining orders by dissipating assets, including selling a Bentley and spending on non-essential items, and had not fully accounted for other traceable property despite an accounting order. The court concluded that a mere restraining order was insufficient to preserve the assets and therefore ordered the accounts frozen and directed delivery of the listed items within five days.
This ERISA case concerned whether claimant Carolyn Flores was entitled to statutory penalties and attorney's fees from insurer LINA after LINA initially denied her claim for continuing short-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan. The parties settled the underlying benefits dispute after Flores sued, with LINA agreeing to pay full STD and partial LTD benefits. The court denied penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) because LINA was not the plan administrator and was not obligated to produce the requested internal claim manuals or procedures. It granted partial fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), however, on the ground that the lawsuit served as the catalyst prompting LINA to reconsider and pay the claim.
This case involves a former probationary teacher at Ocean City Elementary School who sued the Worcester County Board of Education and school administrators after her contract was not renewed. She alleged pregnancy discrimination, pregnancy harassment, race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, along with equal rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligent supervision under Maryland law, claiming that negative evaluations, reprimands, and heightened scrutiny began after she announced her pregnancy and engagement to an African-American man. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all counts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, allowing certain Title VII and § 1983 claims to proceed while dismissing others, including some claims against individual defendants and counts lacking sufficient factual support or timely filing. The core reasoning focused on whether the complaint stated plausible claims under the applicable legal standards for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and supervisory liability, while addressing issues like protected activity under Title VII and the scope of individual capacity claims.
This case was an employment discrimination suit brought by a former Sears assistant store manager under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination based on her Muslim faith and retaliation for complaining about it after she was fired. The court granted Sears's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court found that Sears had accommodated the plaintiff's requests not to work on Fridays and religious holidays, that she had not exhausted her retaliation claim because it was not raised in her EEOC charge, and that the termination for improperly giving her discount card to an associate was based on a legitimate non-discriminatory reason with no evidence of pretext.
