This case arose from an insurance company's subrogation claims against Bank of America seeking recovery of funds from a series of fraudulent checks totaling around $76,000 that a thieving employee caused to be drawn on the insured's account and deposited at the bank, with proceeds later wire-transferred out. The court dismissed Count 1 for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy fell below the $75,000 diversity threshold under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. The remaining counts alleging money had and received, conversion, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust were dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, as the bank retained none of the proceeds and UCC section 3-420(a)(i) barred conversion actions by the check issuer.
This case concerned whether an insurer had a duty to defend or indemnify its insured auto dealership in a Maryland state court class action alleging intentional overcharging of customers on registration and titling fees, with claims for conversion, breach of contract, and violations of state credit and consumer protection laws. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and declared that no coverage or defense obligation existed under the garage liability policies. The policies provided coverage only for accidental bodily injury or property damage arising from garage operations and excluded expected or intended harms, while the separate TILA endorsement applied solely to claims brought exclusively under a specific federal Truth-in-Lending Act provision that was not asserted in the underlying suit; the claims instead involved knowing economic loss not qualifying as an accident or covered property damage.
In Fox v. Encounters International, plaintiff Natilya Fox sued a mail-order bride service, its founder, and her ex-husband, claiming fraud, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of likeness, and negligence against the service and founder for misrepresentations about her husband, failure to disclose rights under the federal Mail Order Bride Act, and unauthorized use of her photo on the website; separate claims against her ex-husband involved assault and emotional distress. The court treated the defendants' pre-discovery motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted it only as to the VCPA count while denying it on the fraud, misappropriation, and negligence claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint sufficiently alleged the required elements for those three claims, including a special relationship and foreseeable risk of harm for negligence based on the Mail Order Bride Act and the plaintiff's reports of abuse.
This case concerned Mr. Schoofield's application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability from a heart attack, stress, and intestinal issues beginning in 1997. After an ALJ denied the claims following multiple hearings and an earlier grant of benefits that was vacated, the district court reviewed the final agency decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court determined that the ALJ had not provided a meaningful explanation of the findings on mental impairments or properly applied the sequential evaluation process and legal standards, including evaluation of listing criteria and medical evidence. It therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings to address these deficiencies.
In Lewis v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a former sales representative sued her employer and two supervisors for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as various state tort claims and unpaid wages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court reviewed evidence that the plaintiff's division manager made repeated sexually explicit comments about his body and hers during ride-alongs, touched her thigh, issued a warning letter after she complained of harassment, and that her performance evaluations declined afterward. The court analyzed whether these facts created genuine issues of material fact on claims of hostile work environment, tangible employment actions, and retaliation, while also addressing defenses such as qualified privilege for any defamation claims.
This case involved plaintiffs Berlyn, Inc., Montgomery Sentinel Publishing, and Kenneth Rossignol, who publish community newspapers, suing defendants including The Washington Post Company, Gazette Newspapers, and Baltimore Suburban Press Network for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Copyright Act, Maryland Antitrust Act, and related state claims including unfair competition, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The disputes centered on advertising placement networks, market competition in Prince George's County newspapers, and alleged exclusionary practices affecting local advertising accounts. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts, finding insufficient evidence of a relevant market or market power, no concerted action or conspiracy under applicable doctrines like Copperweld, and failure to meet other required elements for antitrust and related claims. The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief was denied as moot.
