Robert Daniel Potter

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.

criminal lawhealthcarefederal power

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.

civil rights

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.

criminal lawproceduregunsfederal power

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.

civil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

procedure

This case involves motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) for the return of property seized during the 1992 arrest of defendants Byron Jones and Dandre Torres. The court had previously ordered the government to return $266 to Jones, but reconsidered after evidence showed the money was taken from Torres and belonged to him. Torres then filed his own motion claiming the money plus four beepers and a calculator. The court granted the government's reconsideration in part, ordering the $266 returned to Torres based on undisputed ownership evidence from police reports. However, it denied Torres's request for the other items because his claim, filed nearly seven years after seizure, was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches due to unreasonable delay and the government's prior disposal of the property.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a federal prisoner who, after pleading guilty in 1992 to firearms, drug, and money laundering offenses, filed multiple post-conviction challenges to his sentence. In 1998 he submitted a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the court dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition and as time-barred under the one-year limitation added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. He then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from that dismissal, contending the court had misapplied the statute of limitations. The court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, ruling that the petitioner had not shown a meritorious claim and that the rule does not authorize relief for alleged legal errors.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a federal prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to challenge his 1993 sentence, which had been enhanced based on a 1973 conviction for attempted bank robbery and conspiracy. The court treated the petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence because the prisoner had already filed multiple prior unsuccessful § 2255 motions attacking the same issues. The court denied the petition, finding that the prisoner had not shown § 2255 to be inadequate or ineffective and that the motion constituted an unauthorized successive filing under §§ 2255 and 2244, which requires prior certification from the court of appeals. The petition was therefore dismissed with prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kocan v. ABF Freight System, Inc., former executives of Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation sued after their terminations following a 1995 merger and acquisition involving WorldWay Corporation and Arkansas Best/ABF, seeking benefits under Senior Executive Benefit Plans (SEBPs) that contained change-of-control provisions. The plaintiffs moved to amend the court's prior findings of fact to add details on their job efforts, corporate organizational changes, board nominations, and merger mechanics, asserting these would support their claims without altering the judgment. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the proposed findings were irrelevant because the decisive issue was whether a majority of the pre-merger incumbent board had given written approval to the terminations (which it had on October 17, 1995), not the loss of board control or the manner of electing successor directors. The court further noted that the amendments would not affect the outcome and were unnecessary for any potential appeal.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a post-conviction motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) by defendant Byron Jones seeking return of $266 in cash seized during his arrest, which the court initially ordered returned after determining the government had no claim to it. The government moved for reconsideration, arguing the money belonged to co-defendant Dandre Torres based on new evidence from a police property report and officer statement showing it was found in Torres's bedroom. Treating the motion as a civil equitable proceeding under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the government's filing untimely under Rule 59(e) but potentially allowable under Rule 60(b) if within a reasonable time, yet concluded the government failed to show a cognizable claim of ownership or right to possession adverse to Jones. The court held the motion in abeyance, giving Torres thirty days to assert ownership and move for return of the money; absent such a claim, the government must return it to Jones.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves pro se plaintiffs who sued various federal agents from the FBI, Postal Service, and IRS, alleging constitutional violations under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy, and common-law torts arising from the execution of a search and seizure warrant at their business offices during an investigation into a fraudulent investment scheme; they also sought to remove a related state-court action concerning illegal banking activities to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remove the state action, ruling it procedurally defective because it was filed as a motion rather than a notice of removal, was untimely beyond the 30-day statutory limit, and lacked required state-court documents. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal, finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper service of process, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any genuine issue of material fact, while the warrants were supported by probable cause and the agents were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs' own summary judgment motion was denied as moot. The opinion emphasizes compliance with federal procedural rules and the standards for Bivens claims and official immunity.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved three former executives of Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation (CFCC) and their spouses who sued for benefits under Senior Executive Benefit Plan (SEBP) agreements after a 1995 change in control through a merger with Arkansas Best. The plaintiffs sought accelerated severance payments and other benefits triggered by termination following the corporate change, but the court found that the Incumbent Board had approved the terminations in writing, failing to meet a key condition in the plan agreements. Valitutto and Long were also ineligible for supplemental retirement benefits due to insufficient years of service under the vesting schedule. Kocan was entitled only to the vested portion of his supplemental retirement benefits, payable without acceleration and contingent on compliance with the plan's non-compete restrictions. All other claims were dismissed with prejudice.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal prisoner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or correct his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The petitioner claimed the government breached the plea agreement by failing to secure a ten-year sentence, and also challenged his supervised release term and the lack of formal notice regarding a prior conviction enhancement. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the written plea agreement contained only non-binding recommendations that the government fulfilled, that no explicit promise of a ten-year term existed, and that the sentence and supervised release complied with the applicable statutes. Other claims were rejected due to procedural default without a showing of cause and prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Atere-Roberts, a black male who emigrated from Sierra Leone, alleging that defendant Jeld-Wen denied him a promotion to a supervisory position because of his race and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The decision rested on evidence that promotion candidates were evaluated using standardized, non-biased tests and personnel reviews, with higher-scoring white candidates selected by decision-makers who were unaware of applicants' races; the plaintiff failed to show he was better qualified or that the stated reasons were pretext for discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from repeated lawsuits by U.S. citizen Soraya F. Fares and her daughter Marie-Thérése H. Assa’ad-Faltas, an Egyptian citizen whose student visa had expired and whose applications for adjustment of status were denied for failing a required two-year homestay and for unlawful employment. After prior actions in South Carolina were dismissed, the plaintiffs refiled in the Western District of North Carolina asserting Bivens claims against the INS and several individual employees and attorneys for alleged improper searches, seizures, and denial of immigration benefits. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to partially vacate an earlier stay under Rule 41(d) solely to resolve the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. It then dismissed the Bivens claims against the named and unnamed individual defendants with prejudice on grounds of immunity, citing the need to resolve such threshold issues before allowing discovery or further proceedings, and denied the plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

In Mitchell v. Apfel, the plaintiff sought Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to chronic alcoholism with an onset date in 1994. After an ALJ denied the claims and the Appeals Council affirmed, the plaintiff filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a 1996 statutory amendment (Pub. L. No. 104-121, § 105) that bars finding disability where alcoholism or drug addiction is a contributing factor material to the determination. The district court conducted de novo review of the legal challenge, applied rational basis scrutiny to the equal protection and due process claims, and concluded that the amendment is rationally related to legitimate government interests in conserving fiscal resources and discouraging substance abuse. The court therefore adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

federal powerhealthcarecivil rights

In this case, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that co-prime contractors on a UNC Charlotte construction project had no valid claims against payment and performance bonds issued for the project after the general contractor abandoned it. Alpha Mechanical, Inc., one of the contractors, opposed the motion and sought dismissal, pointing to an ongoing parallel state court action involving the same parties and issues, as well as a pending administrative claim. Following its prior ruling in a nearly identical case against another contractor (Aetna v. Ind-Com), which the Fourth Circuit had affirmed, the court denied Aetna’s motion for summary judgment and granted the motion to dismiss. The court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to abstain, citing factors including the lack of a useful purpose in resolving the full controversy, risks of piecemeal litigation, and concerns of federalism, efficiency, and comity given the state proceedings.

procedurefederal power

The case concerned motions by the plaintiffs' local counsel (now part of the merged firm McGuire Woods) to withdraw and by the defendants to disqualify the firm in a school desegregation lawsuit brought by Capacchione against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. The court denied both motions after hearings and fact-finding. The core reasoning was that a partner's pre-lawsuit educational briefing to the school superintendent on general desegregation law updates since Swann did not create an actual conflict under North Carolina ethics rules, as it involved no specific legal advice, confidential information relevant to this case, or representation of the defendants, and screening measures were unnecessary.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Meineke franchisees suing the company for breaching their Franchise and Trademark Agreements, fiduciary duties, and committing fraud and other torts by creating a subsidiary to handle advertising, taking improper fees and commissions from the Weekly Advertising Account, and misusing those funds for purposes like settling lawsuits or attracting new franchisees. A jury trial resulted in findings of liability on most claims and an award of damages to the plaintiff class, though certain releases executed by class members were upheld as valid. On the plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment, the court resolved outstanding issues including the effect of releases, allocation of damages, application of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act (including trebling prejudgment interest), and election of remedies, concluding that these matters did not bar entry of judgment and directing the clerk to enter final judgment accordingly.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure