The case involved a wrongful death claim by the wife of a former Navy officer who died from mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos exposure aboard the USS NIMITZ, filed in state court against the asbestos product distributor under maritime laws. The defendant removed the case to federal court asserting jurisdiction based on the federal enclave clause or federal officer removal statute. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that federal enclave jurisdiction applies only to land, not naval vessels, and that the defendant lacked a colorable federal defense for federal officer removal in a failure-to-warn case.
This case involved James Wharton's appeal of a bankruptcy court's order dismissing his third Chapter 11 petition, which listed the IRS as his sole creditor for approximately $800,000 in non-dischargeable tax penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was not clearly erroneous for the bankruptcy court to find the filing lacked good faith under the two-prong Carolin test from the Fourth Circuit. The objective futility prong was met because the debtor had only one creditor, proposed an identical reorganization plan that had already been rejected due to IRS objections, and had no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The subjective bad faith prong was satisfied based on the pleadings and procedural history showing the petition was filed primarily to delay IRS collection efforts rather than to achieve reorganization.
The case involved a former waitress at Denny's who alleged that a coworker's repeated unwanted physical contact, sexual remarks, and a rape threat created a hostile work environment, forcing her resignation; she brought a federal Title VII claim plus Virginia state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent retention, and constructive discharge. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the three state-law counts. It reasoned that the coworker was not acting within the scope of employment so Denny's could not be vicariously liable, that negligent retention is not an actionable tort under Virginia law, and that Virginia's public-policy exception to at-will employment does not yet cover constructive discharges. The Title VII claim was unaffected by the ruling.
The case Moore v. United States centered on taxpayers Robert and Frances Moore who sought a refund of $47,477 in 1986 taxes after the IRS disallowed their claimed deduction under IRC §165 and §1231 for an alleged regulatory taking and involuntary conversion loss on land purchased for residential development. The government filed a counterclaim seeking an additional $290,763 in unpaid taxes and interest for that year. The court denied both the refund claim and the counterclaim after reviewing stipulated issues including the impact of updated 1989 wetlands regulations on development permits under the Clean Water Act and the deductibility of entertainment expenses under IRC §274. The core reasoning applied the relevant tax code provisions and Treasury regulations to the facts of the regulatory changes affecting the property and the business context of the claimed expenditures.
In this case, plaintiff James Benson, a Contel employee, sued the Communications Workers of America (CWA) for breaching its duty of fair representation under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act after the union pursued a grievance on behalf of another employee, Barbara Kirker, over a promotion decision without providing Benson notice or an opportunity to participate, resulting in an arbitration award that demoted Benson. Benson also asserted derivative claims against Contel and alternative constitutional claims under the First and Fifth Amendments. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo, granted summary judgment to CWA. The court reasoned that the union's actions were not arbitrary because they relied on a prior arbitration interpreting the collective bargaining agreement's "best qualified senior applicant" clause, and that the duty of fair representation does not impose a per se obligation to notify or represent all affected members in every grievance.
This case involved a dispute over a subcontract for constructing military housing at Guantanamo Bay, where Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc. sued the AEGIS/Zublin Joint Venture and others under the Miller Act for breach of contract and other claims after delays in construction. The parties had agreed to arbitration, which resulted in an award to SKI of over $2.6 million plus fees and interest. The court lifted the stay on the case, confirmed the arbitration award against the joint venture and the surety up to the bond amount, but declined to pierce the corporate veil to hold the parent company liable. The decision was based on the Federal Arbitration Act allowing confirmation and the lack of grounds to vacate the award or pierce the veil under Virginia law.