This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by a former employee alleging that defendants, including Pediatric Services of America and related entities, submitted false Medicare claims for home oxygen therapy by misrepresenting that required medical data had been completed by physicians rather than non-physician employees, in violation of conflict-of-interest rules. The government declined to intervene. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the FCA's qui tam provisions violate separation of powers under the Take Care and Appointments Clauses and due process due to the relator's financial interest. The court denied the motions, holding the provisions constitutional based on historical acceptance of qui tam suits, the limited scope of relator authority in individual cases, sufficient government oversight mechanisms, and the distinction that relators act as private parties rather than government prosecutors owing public duties.
This case involved a petition for attorneys' fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in a long-running school desegregation lawsuit against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. The court had previously ruled that the school system achieved unitary status, eliminating vestiges of past discrimination, but that its magnet school admissions process used an inflexible racial assignment policy violating the Equal Protection Clause, resulting in nominal damages of $1 and an injunction against strict race-based student assignments. Petitioners were deemed prevailing parties because they succeeded on the core constitutional claim, even without actual damages or full injunctive relief, and the court applied the Johnson factors along with lodestar calculations to award reasonable fees and documented expenses totaling over $1.4 million plus interest. The decision rejected arguments that lack of standing or partial success barred fee recovery.
The case involves a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Nuradeen Alamin under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using firearms during drug trafficking offenses, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States that narrowed the meaning of 'use' of a firearm. The government moved to dismiss on procedural grounds, arguing the petition was barred as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and alternatively sought resentencing on the related drug conspiracy count to allow for a gun enhancement. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the actual innocence claim overcame procedural bars due to the constitutional implications, vacated the four § 924(c) convictions and the consecutive 60-month sentence after determining the firearms were not used or carried in the required manner, and denied the request for resentencing on the drug count.
The case concerned whether Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools had achieved unitary status, ending the federal desegregation order issued in the Swann litigation three decades earlier to remedy a dual school system. After a two-month trial, the court held that CMS had reached unitary status in student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, facilities, transportation, extracurricular activities, and ancillary areas, and therefore dissolved the desegregation injunction. The court further ruled that certain ongoing race-based magnet school admissions and assignment policies violated the Equal Protection Clause without a continuing remedial justification and enjoined their future use. The core reasoning rested on findings that CMS had complied with the original order in good faith to the extent practicable, that current racial imbalances resulted from demographic trends rather than vestiges of the prior dual system, and that the district was unlikely to return to intentional segregation.
This case involved a commercial dispute between Holz-Her U.S., Inc. and Monarch Machinery, Inc. arising from a 1988 exclusive distributorship agreement and unpaid equipment invoices. After an initial arbitration and a partial remand, the arbitration panel found that Holz-Her did not breach the 1988 agreement and that Monarch owed Holz-Her a net amount of $212,405.89 plus interest. Holz-Her moved to confirm the award, while Monarch sought a stay pending the outcome of a related Texas state-court action, citing potential financial hardship. The court granted confirmation, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act favors prompt enforcement of arbitration awards and that Monarch's speculative assertions of hardship did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a delay.
This case is a patent infringement action in which Belmont Textile Machinery Company alleged that Superba S.A. infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,594,968 covering a method and apparatus for space dyeing yarn, and further claimed that any infringement was willful. Superba denied infringement and invalidity claims while asserting good faith based on counsel's advice, prompting Belmont to move to preclude reliance on that advice absent a full waiver of attorney-client privilege. The court considered several discovery motions and a request to bifurcate the trial on liability versus willfulness and damages. It held that Superba must elect to either produce the privileged opinions and waive the privilege as to the subject area or forgo the advice-of-counsel defense entirely, reasoning that selective use of self-serving communications would be unfair; bifurcation was therefore denied as unnecessary. The court granted the motions to compel depositions of the parties' employees and extended the discovery deadline to May 19, 1999.