John Ashton MacKenzie

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.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

taxesenvironmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employment

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This maritime case involved an insurance broker, Flagship Group, suing for a declaratory judgment that it held a valid federal maritime lien on three cruise ships owned by Peninsula Cruise for $6,225.62 in unpaid insurance premiums, while Peninsula counterclaimed for damages related to policy cancellations. The district court granted Flagship's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Peninsula's, ruling that unpaid insurance premiums give rise to a maritime lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31329. The core reasoning was that insurance qualifies as a "necessary" under the statute because it is essential to keep a vessel in commerce, adopting the approach of the Fifth Circuit in Equilease Corp. v. M/V Sampson and distinguishing contrary Sixth Circuit precedent. The court found no genuine issues of material fact on this legal question.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved a former employee suing his employer for wrongful termination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination based on his multiple sclerosis diagnosis. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims for compensatory and punitive damages and to strike the jury demand. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and held that such damages are not available under these statutes, as they are enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause, limiting remedies primarily to administrative actions like termination of federal funding, and thus no jury trial right exists.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs, the owner and insurer of a yacht, seeking recovery under admiralty jurisdiction for extensive damages to the vessel that occurred when it was dropped into the water during discharge from the defendant's ship after an on-deck voyage from New Orleans to Sri Lanka. The central issue raised by the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment was whether the $500 per package limitation of liability under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) applied to cap the carrier's responsibility. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiffs', on the ground that the bill of lading incorporated COGSA by reference, the carrier's tariff provided a mechanism for declaring higher value, and the shipper had a fair opportunity to avoid the limitation by paying additional freight.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation's appeal from a bankruptcy court's dismissal of its action seeking to prevent the discharge of debts owed by Eric and Barbara Pitts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Pitts had used pre-signed, undated mechanic's lien waiver affidavits to obtain draws on construction loans, even after falling behind on payments to subcontractors, resulting in liens and losses exceeding $151,000 for Lawyers Title. The bankruptcy court found the affidavits were not false when originally executed as part of a common 'system of convenience' and dismissed the case for failure to prove a false representation. The district court reversed, holding that the use of the affidavits at the time of the draws constituted false representations under the statute, and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining elements of knowledge, intent, reliance, and damages.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

James City County sued the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers after the EPA vetoed the Corps' decision to issue a permit under Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for placing fill material to build a dam and reservoir on Ware Creek to address the county's projected long-term water shortage. Both sides moved for summary judgment based on the administrative record. The court held that the EPA's veto was improper and ordered the Corps to issue the permit. The court reasoned that the EPA's proposed alternatives, such as a three-dam project or expanded groundwater use, were not practicable because they were either more costly with less capacity, prohibited by state law and federal studies, or otherwise infeasible, while the record showed the Ware Creek project was the only viable option after extensive review and mitigation efforts.

environmentfederal power

This case concerned whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had regulatory jurisdiction under section 404 of the Clean Water Act over a 38-acre tract of wetlands owned by Tabb Lakes, Ltd., requiring the company to obtain a permit before filling the land for development. After Tabb Lakes withdrew its permit application and sued for a declaratory judgment, the Corps asserted jurisdiction based on a 1985 internal memorandum that included migratory bird habitat as a basis for an interstate commerce connection under the applicable regulations. The court held that the memorandum constituted a substantive rule rather than an interpretive rule or policy statement because it imposed significant effects on public interests and was intended to be binding without agency discretion. As a result, the memorandum was invalid for failure to follow the notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Corps lacked jurisdiction over the property.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved debtors in the Eastern District of Virginia challenging Local Bankruptcy Rule 313, which mandates the use of a specific form plan for Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings. The bankruptcy court upheld the rule en banc, and on appeal, the district court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the local rule is authorized under federal statutes and bankruptcy rules, concerns only matters of practice and procedure, does not modify any substantive rights under the Bankruptcy Code, and is consistent with existing rules as it promotes efficiency without conflicting with debtors' rights to file plans. The district court rejected arguments that the rule improperly involved the courts in the practice of law or created conflicts of interest.

procedurefederal power

This case involves the United States seeking partial summary judgment against defendants Gerald L. Moore, Bonnie F. Moore, and Moor-Fite Corporation for liability under CERCLA and RCRA for approximately $430,000 in response costs from a 1983 cleanup at the Pembroke Avenue site. The court denied the motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether a release or threatened release of hazardous substances occurred and whether the defendants qualified as covered persons or could assert defenses such as the third-party act defense under CERCLA § 9607(b)(3). The court also denied related motions for reconsideration of prior rulings on counterclaims, dismissal of amended counterclaims, and bifurcation of the trial, determining that factual disputes and the interconnected nature of the claims required resolution at trial rather than on summary judgment.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involves the United States suing defendants under CERCLA and RCRA for costs and other relief related to a 1983 hazardous substance cleanup at the Pembroke Avenue site. The court ruled on several motions, denying certification of an interlocutory appeal regarding the non-retroactive application of 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g), denying dismissal of the complaint based on the statute of limitations or laches (instead applying laches or the six-year period under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a)), denying dismissal of defendants' counterclaims asserting sovereign immunity while requiring amendment for proper jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and denying realignment of the Department of Defense as a defendant. The core reasoning relied on legislative history indicating no statute of limitations applied to such CERCLA actions, prior precedent treating them as equitable, and the conclusion that an inter-agency settlement did not bar contribution claims under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2).

environmentprocedurefederal powertorts & liability

In HF Staiger Co. v. PT Trikora Lloyd, a New York rubber buyer sued an Indonesian carrier in admiralty under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for $30,003.33 in damage to 555 pallets of crude rubber shipped aboard the M/V TRAUTENBELS from Palembang, Indonesia, to Norfolk, Virginia. The court found the carrier liable after a bench trial, awarding the full amount plus interest. It held that clean bills of lading issued at loading established the cargo's good condition and created a prima facie case, while the rubber showed fresh-water damage (mold and bleaching) upon discharge; the carrier was estopped from rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of pre-loading damage or inferior packing. Depreciation allowances calculated from joint condition surveys were accepted as the proper measure of loss in market value.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves the United States seeking recovery of response costs under CERCLA and RCRA for abating hazardous substance releases at the Pembroke Avenue site, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and contribution from defendants including a dissolved corporation and its owners. The court denied the dissolved corporation's motion to quash service, holding that Virginia law permits suits against defunct corporations for pre-dissolution liabilities and that service on its president was valid. It denied the individual co-owner's motion for summary judgment, ruling that ownership of the facility at the time of disposal qualifies a person as strictly liable under CERCLA section 9607(a)(2) regardless of operational involvement. The court also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, determining that the newly enacted provision in section 9613(g) does not apply retroactively to claims that accrued prior to its passage.

environment

In this case, subcontractor Shore Contractors sued the Small Business Administration after failing to receive full payment from prime contractor Transit on a Navy demolition project that the SBA had arranged under its minority business program. Shore alleged that the SBA violated duties under the Miller Act and 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(2) by not requiring a payment bond or other protections for subcontractors. The district court granted the SBA's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that neither statute creates a private cause of action allowing subcontractors to recover from the government for an absent bond. The court reasoned that the Miller Act provides no direct claim against the United States and that the SBA's "sue and be sued" authority does not expand liability beyond the Federal Tort Claims Act for such claims. The opinion did not reach the SBA's alternative arguments regarding exemptions or the Contract Disputes Act.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Furmanite America, Inc. against Durango Associates, Inc. seeking rulings that the defendants' patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service, or alternatively to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied the motion to dismiss or transfer, holding that personal jurisdiction existed under Virginia's long-arm statute because the defendants had transacted business in the state by selling and shipping patented flange-facing machines to Virginia Beach on at least two occasions, and these contacts satisfied due process by showing purposeful availment. The court also ruled on related discovery motions, ordering the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' requests within twenty-five days after entry of the order.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved appellants, including William Runnells and related family members and corporations, seeking district court review of a default judgment exceeding $16 million entered against them in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in a Chapter 7 proceeding concerning Landbank Equity Corporation; the trustee's complaint alleged fraudulent conveyances, preferences, and related claims under bankruptcy law and Virginia statutes. The district court reversed the default judgment and remanded for trial on the merits, concluding that the trustee showed no prejudice from the late answers (filed 13 and 41 days after deadline), that the default was strictly technical amid multiple proceedings and personal circumstances, and that the large judgment amount warranted setting it aside. The court also affirmed that the matters were core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157 but directed reexamination of damages calculations and treble damages on remand.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power