Robert E. Payne

The case involves a former special education teacher who sued the Henrico County School Board and several officials, alleging retaliation including threats, demotion, suspension, and contract non-renewal after she reported student abuse, neglect, and discriminatory practices against African-American and economically disadvantaged students. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Count One proceeds only against the school board, while Count Nine proceeds in part for abuse of process claims accruing on or after January 4, 2009; the remaining counts are dismissed on grounds including qualified immunity, the statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction or standing, and failure to state a claim. The reasoning relies on application of federal pleading standards, Virginia limitations law, and doctrines barring certain claims against individual defendants or for lack of concrete injury.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between SunTrust Mortgage and United Guaranty Residential Insurance over the insurer's denial of coverage claims on 1,305 loans insured under a master policy. After granting summary judgment to SunTrust on liability, finding that United Guaranty had materially breached the policy, the court held a bench trial on damages for Count I. The parties had stipulated that covered claims totaled $34,152,634 as of May 31, 2011, with prejudgment interest through July 18, 2011, at $5,794,420 and a daily rate thereafter. The court awarded SunTrust the full stipulated damages plus interest, applying Virginia law that measures damages for breach of an obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the principal amount due together with interest, and rejecting United Guaranty's offset argument based on SunTrust's avoided future premiums.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned SunTrust Mortgage's affirmative defense to United Guaranty's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment requiring SunTrust to continue paying annual renewal premiums on mortgage insurance policies after the maximum cumulative liability limit had been reached for loan pools. The court had initially granted summary judgment to United Guaranty but later vacated it to address SunTrust's claim that United Guaranty committed a first material breach by denying claims on IOF Combo 100 Loans and improperly collecting premiums on performing loans. After a bench trial limited to evidence on the defense, the court held that SunTrust met its burden, entering judgment for SunTrust on the counterclaim count. The core reasoning was that United Guaranty's breaches of the insurance policy (including one already established in related litigation) were material and precluded enforcement of SunTrust's ongoing premium obligations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves DuPont's lawsuit against Kolon Industries alleging trade secret misappropriation and related business torts concerning Kevlar aramid fiber technology. The opinion addresses DuPont's motion for sanctions based on claims that Kolon employees deleted relevant electronic evidence shortly after the complaint was filed and then concealed the deletions. The court granted the motion, concluding that the record established deliberate spoliation by key Kolon personnel, supported by screenshots of deletion commands, evasive deposition testimony, low document production volumes, and forensic examinations of computer systems.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a breach of contract claim by SunTrust Mortgage against AIG United Guaranty regarding denial of insurance coverage on IOF Combo 100 loans under a Master Policy and related flow plans from 2004 and 2005. SunTrust moved for summary judgment on Count I, asserting that the loans were covered and that United Guaranty's denials based on alleged underwriting exclusions were improper. The court granted the motion, entering partial summary judgment for SunTrust on liability. It reasoned that United Guaranty could not rely on parol evidence such as guideline matrices to establish an exclusion under Section 4.14 of the policy, that the policy language was ambiguous as to the source of underwriting guidelines, and that the material misrepresentation affirmative defense failed as a matter of law under Virginia insurance rules.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between SunTrust Mortgage and United Guaranty over an insurance policy covering certain mortgage loans, specifically whether United Guaranty breached the contract by denying claims on IOF Combo 100 loans that were not underwritten using Desktop Underwriting. SunTrust filed a motion in limine to bar United Guaranty from introducing parol evidence to interpret or alter the policy terms. The court granted the motion, holding that the Master Policy and Flow Plans contain unambiguous language defining the applicable underwriting guidelines as SunTrust's own guidelines, which cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence under Virginia's parol evidence rule. The decision rests on the principle that clear contractual provisions control and that the insurer, as drafter, cannot rely on outside communications to exclude coverage when the written terms specify otherwise.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between SunTrust Mortgage and United Guaranty over the terms of a mortgage insurance policy. SunTrust filed suit for breach of contract, and United Guaranty counterclaimed seeking a declaration that SunTrust remained obligated to pay annual renewal premiums on insured loans even after United Guaranty had paid the maximum cumulative liability for losses on those loans. The court granted United Guaranty's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim and denied SunTrust's motion, holding that the policy language in Section 3.4 clearly and unambiguously requires continued payment of renewal premiums for the life of the loans until one of the specified terminating events occurs. The court reasoned that none of those terminating events had taken place and that the premium obligation was independent of the insurer having reached its liability cap.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Moore, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a state search warrant executed at Club Velvet, a Richmond nightclub he owned, following joint investigations by Virginia ABC agents and Richmond police into alleged prostitution, narcotics distribution, money laundering, and ABC violations such as serving alcohol to minors and allowing illegal nude dances. The court denied the motion, holding that the warrant was supported by probable cause based on a detailed affidavit from a cooperating witness and undercover observations, and that the items seized—including financial records, tax returns, and business documents—fell within the warrant's scope as evidence related to the listed offenses like prostitution and money laundering. The opinion reasoned that the affidavit provided sufficient particularity, officers did not exceed the warrant's limits during execution, and there was no showing of an improper general search warrant. Although federal IRS involvement occurred, the warrant and seizure were conducted under state authority without reliance on federal tax violations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether Sprint breached nineteen interconnection agreements (ICAs) with CenturyLink telephone companies by refusing, starting in June 2009, to pay access charges for Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls that it had previously paid for years. The court held that Sprint breached the ICAs and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The agreements contained an unambiguous provision requiring that VoIP calls be compensated in the same manner as voice traffic, including reciprocal compensation and access charges based on jurisdictional endpoints. Sprint's refusal rested on post-hoc interpretations developed during cost-cutting efforts, which the court found lacked credibility and contradicted the contracts' plain terms as well as the parties' prior performance.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved defendant Kelly Victorio Baugh, who was on federal supervised release after a 1999 drug trafficking conviction when he committed new violations including misdemeanor assault on a family member and failure to comply with mental health treatment conditions, leading to revocation proceedings. Baugh, who had a history of paranoid delusions and psychosis, was found incompetent to participate in the revocation hearing, prompting the government to seek authorization for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication under the Sell standard to restore competency. The court denied Baugh's objection to the medication order and his motion to stay, concluding that the government had an important interest in adjudicating the serious supervised release violations to protect public safety, that involuntary medication was substantially likely to restore competency without undue side effects, and that no less intrusive alternatives existed.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

The case concerned defendant James E. Venable's motion to dismiss a federal charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which arose after he received stolen guns from two Caucasian burglars who were prosecuted in state court in Campbell County. Venable, an African-American felon living in Richmond, was instead referred for federal prosecution through the Project Exile program. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Its core reasoning was that Venable failed to establish the elements required for a selective prosecution claim based on race or other impermissible factors.

criminal lawgunscivil rightsfederal power

In Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., the plaintiff brought a patent infringement action seeking damages and injunctive relief, and offered expert testimony from Dr. Russell W. Mangum III to calculate reasonable royalties using the Georgia-Pacific factors derived from certain settlement agreements. The defendant moved in limine to exclude the testimony on grounds that the expert's methodology relied on irrelevant licenses, unsupported assumptions, an over-inclusive royalty base, and an arbitrary doubling of the baseline rate without reliable analysis. The court granted the motion, precluding Dr. Mangum from testifying, because the proffered opinions lacked the reliability required by Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and amounted to ipse dixit conclusions rather than a valid application of accepted methods.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a contract dispute between CenturyLink and Sprint over whether Sprint must pay access charges under eighteen interconnection agreements (ICAs) for VoIP-originated traffic carried on CenturyLink's local telephone networks, as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Sprint moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, alternatively, to stay the case under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, arguing that state commissions or the FCC should first interpret the ICAs. The court denied Sprint's motion, denied CenturyLink's motion to supplement the record, and sustained CenturyLink's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the case be dismissed or stayed. It reasoned that federal district courts have jurisdiction over breach-of-contract claims arising from ICAs because the agreements implement essential duties imposed by the 1996 Act and that no administrative exhaustion or primary-jurisdiction stay was required.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned an employee, Clyde Bennett, who sued his employer R&L Carriers Shared Services and several managers and an investigator after an internal probe into missing computers from company shipments at the Richmond terminal, which resulted in Bennett's termination and related claims. Following a jury trial that awarded Bennett compensatory and punitive damages, the defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The court granted the motion in part by ordering remittitur to reduce certain punitive damage awards as excessive relative to the defendants' net worth and denied it in part, upholding liability and other damages based on the evidence presented at trial regarding the investigation's handling and resulting harms.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In this patent infringement case, WiAV Solutions LLC sued Motorola, Inc., Nokia, Inc., and Nokia Corp. for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,539,205, which covers a method for improving communication quality through link adaptation in cell phones implementing certain standards. The defendants moved for summary judgment to limit pre-suit damages on the ground that multiple licensees had sold or offered for sale unmarked patented products. The court granted the motion, holding that the failure to mark by licensees such as Skyworks, Mindspeed, LG, RIM, Apple, and HTC triggered the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, barring recovery of damages before the complaint provided actual notice on July 14, 2009. The willful infringement portion of the motion was denied as moot due to a stipulation of dismissal.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Sunbeam Products against several defendants, including Homeland Housewares, over vessels used with blenders that allow direct consumption of blended contents. Homeland moved to disqualify Sunbeam's law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, because one of its attorneys had previously represented Homeland in patent matters related to the accused Magic Bullet product while at another firm. The court granted the disqualification motion, finding that the prior and current representations were substantially related under Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9 and 1.10, as the attorney had worked on patent prosecutions, prior art analysis, and non-infringement opinions for the same product. The decision emphasizes the need to protect client confidences and avoid the appearance of impropriety, presuming shared confidences in such situations.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Brown, the defendant, who had a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) after police found a loaded handgun in his car during a traffic stop; he moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that, consistent with Fourth Circuit precedent in United States v. Chester, the statute's prohibition on firearm possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence is presumptively lawful and does not violate the Second Amendment, even under heightened scrutiny, given the historical tradition of disarming individuals who have committed violent crimes. The decision addressed procedural objections to pretrial resolution of the constitutional claim but ultimately upheld the indictment based on the limited scope of the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

gunscriminal law

The case concerned an advocacy organization for homeless individuals suing the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City of Richmond, and Homeward over the placement of the Conrad Center, a facility offering free services to the homeless, on Oliver Hill Way, which the plaintiff alleged impermissibly segregated homeless people from the broader community in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The core reasoning centered on statutes of limitations barring the claims, as the relevant decisions—including site selection, permits, leases, and the organization's creation as a separate entity—occurred between 2002 and 2006, well before the 2007 opening and providing the plaintiff with earlier notice, along with deficiencies in pleading certain claims as required by prior court order.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with drug trafficking and firearm offenses who moved to suppress evidence and statements obtained after a police encounter. The court granted the motion to reconsider its prior denial of suppression, ruling that the officer's stop of the defendant violated the Fourth Amendment. The stop was based on an alleged violation of a Virginia pedestrian statute, but the defendant had not actually broken the law, and the officer's misinterpretation of the statute constituted an impermissible mistake of law. The court further held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to mistakes of law.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves a motion for attorney's fees and costs filed by the plaintiffs after the court disqualified the original defense counsel for conflicts of interest in representing multiple defendants in a civil action stemming from the death of a disabled patient following physical restraint at a hospital. The plaintiffs argued that the attorneys' refusal to withdraw earlier unreasonably multiplied the proceedings, seeking sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court's inherent authority. The court denied the motion, holding that the attorneys' conduct, while involving conflicts that warranted disqualification, did not rise to the level of bad faith, vexatiousness, or unreasonable multiplication of proceedings required for fee-shifting sanctions. The decision emphasized that sanctions under these authorities demand a showing of subjective bad faith or conduct beyond mere negligence or error in judgment regarding representation.

procedurecivil rights