Lacy Herman Thornburg

In Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Busby, the plaintiff mortgage lender sued multiple borrower defendants for breach of contract and fraud after they defaulted on approximately $1.5 million construction loans secured by deeds of trust on North Carolina properties intended for vacation homes. The defendants asserted counterclaims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and related claims arising from the loan agreements and property appraisals. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed all counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that the pleadings failed to state viable claims under North Carolina law.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Petitioner Jackson's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal conviction and death sentence for using a firearm during crimes of violence including murder, kidnapping, and aggravated sexual abuse. After a state conviction and plea deal for related offenses, Jackson was federally indicted, convicted following trial, and sentenced to death under the Federal Death Penalty Act. The court denied all of Jackson's requests for discovery, expert assistance, evidentiary hearings, juror interviews, and amendments, then denied the § 2255 petition on the merits, finding no valid claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, constitutional violations, or other errors that would entitle him to relief. The core reasoning rested on the lack of evidence supporting the claims, prior state and federal proceedings, and the conclusion that any alleged issues did not prejudice the outcome or render the conviction invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the pretrial detention of a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) with attempting to persuade an individual he believed to be an 11-year-old girl to engage in sexual acts, based on an online chat with an undercover officer posing as a minor. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's detention order and affirmed it, applying the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption of detention for crimes involving minor victims. The court weighed the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), finding that the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence weighed against release, the defendant's history and characteristics weighed slightly in favor, and the danger to the community weighed heavily against release. It concluded that the defendant had not overcome the presumption, leading to the order of detention being upheld pending trial.

criminal law

The case involves a dispute in which Plaintiff Walker alleged that Defendant White diverted funds owed to their partnership by using Defendant CPBBC, Inc., and that White failed to observe corporate formalities, effectively making CPBBC his alter ego. CPBBC moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state claims of breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment. After de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations, the court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that CPBBC had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. The court also denied dismissal of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, finding them adequately pled against CPBBC, but granted dismissal without prejudice of the declaratory judgment claim because the complaint did not provide clear notice of the relief sought from CPBBC.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved North Carolina, acting on behalf of its citizens, suing the Tennessee Valley Authority in federal court for public nuisance based on air pollution from TVA's coal-fired power plants in other states, which allegedly entered North Carolina causing health issues, environmental damage, and economic costs. The court determined that it possessed authority to hear and resolve the nuisance claim on the merits after trial, notwithstanding the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme under the Clean Air Act. The core reasoning was that the CAA includes a savings clause preserving state common-law remedies, that states have traditionally brought parens patriae suits to abate public nuisances, and that the EPA's role as primary regulator of interstate air pollution does not displace judicial equitable powers in this context.

environmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involves North Carolina suing the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) over air emissions from TVA's coal-fired power plants in Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky, which the state claims constitute a public nuisance harming its citizens' health, natural resources, and economy; North Carolina sought injunctive relief to abate the emissions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, including TVA's challenges to subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence, as well as North Carolina's motion to dismiss several of TVA's defenses. The court denied TVA's motions, finding genuine issues of material fact and that North Carolina had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the emissions caused an unreasonable interference with public health and safety under the nuisance laws of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It also granted North Carolina's motion in part, dismissing several TVA defenses with prejudice, while noting the state's authority to bring such claims via parens patriae standing for interstate pollution issues.

environmenttorts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

In Anderson v. Dobson, plaintiff Theodore Anderson, a scientist holding patents in plasma antenna technology, and the defendants formed SmartBand Technologies, Inc. to commercialize the technology, but a dispute arose over corporate control after Anderson purported to remove the defendants from their director and officer roles as majority shareholder, while the defendants claimed a prior stock dispersion had diluted Anderson's shares and stripped his authority. The case involved multiple motions referred to a magistrate judge, including challenges to personal jurisdiction over Haleakala Research and Development, partial summary judgment on Anderson's claims, and summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaims and third-party complaint. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations in substantial part, granting summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaims and third-party complaint with prejudice under Delaware law due to insufficient evidence of the alleged stock dispersion or breach, denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as moot, and resolving related procedural issues such as discovery extensions and a motion to strike. The ruling turned on the absence of written instruments or records supporting the defendants' version of events and the application of summary judgment standards to the factual disputes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a third-party petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) following her successful claim in an ancillary forfeiture proceeding tied to a criminal case. The petitioner had received $812,000 from her ex-husband's forfeited assets through a divorce arbitration process, which the court previously determined was an arms-length transaction making her an innocent owner. The district court granted the fee award, holding that EAJA applies to such ancillary proceedings because they function as civil actions to redress private property interests. The court reasoned that the government's position lacked substantial justification, as it pursued forfeiture despite knowing the petitioner's innocent status and despite available alternatives, and rejected arguments that special circumstances barred the award.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved a former CVS employee who was terminated after an incident where she left the store without paying a $5 co-pay for a prescription and was reported by CVS to the ChoicePoint Esteem database as involving fraud or theft of drugs; this report contributed to her being denied jobs at other retailers. She sued CVS for libel/slander, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, blacklisting, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The court granted CVS's motion for summary judgment on all claims, concluding that they were preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act or failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, while denying the motion to compel settlement details as moot.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Eric Call, who was convicted in North Carolina state court of first-degree murder (on theories of premeditation and felony murder), robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and sentenced to death. After exhausting state remedies, including direct appeals and motions for appropriate relief, the petitioner raised claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel and a Confrontation Clause violation based on Crawford v. Washington. The district court denied the petition, applying AEDPA's deferential standards of review and presuming state court factual findings correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that the state proceedings did not result in decisions contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor were they based on unreasonable factual determinations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plea agreement validly waived the right to such collateral attacks except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, and no such misconduct occurred. The petitioner alleged ineffective assistance because his counsel did not highlight a dismissed state charge related to similar conduct, but the court reasoned that this was irrelevant to sentencing as the conduct itself was considered, and counsel had vigorously defended by filing numerous objections to the presentence report. The sentence of 60 months was at the statutory maximum.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the State of North Carolina suing the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for alleged air pollution from its coal-fired power plants in neighboring states, claiming these emissions constitute a public nuisance harming North Carolina's citizens, natural resources, economy, and finances, and seeking injunctive relief to abate the harm. TVA moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims were non-justiciable under Fourth Circuit precedent in Ferris v. Wilbur, the discretionary function doctrine, and the Supremacy Clause. The court denied the motion, holding that historical Supreme Court precedent such as Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. recognizes states' quasi-sovereign interests in cross-boundary pollution disputes, that TVA's power generation operations are not exempt as wholly governmental functions, and that the Clean Air Act does not preempt state common law nuisance claims against federal entities like TVA.

environmentfederal powertorts & liability

KCH Services, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and objected to an unsecured proof of claim filed by The Nordam Group, Inc. for $391,149.07 arising from alleged incomplete and deficient installation of industrial cleaning equipment at Nordam's Tulsa facility. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim after considering deposition testimony and exhibits detailing repair costs and estimates, and KCH appealed. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, then affirmed the order allowing the claim in full. The court held that Nordam met its burden of establishing the claim's validity through competent evidence of deficiencies and costs, that the bankruptcy court's findings were plausible on the record, and that KCH's challenges to the evidence and procedures lacked merit.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the United States seeking a preliminary injunction against defendant Jerry O. Adams, III, to prevent him from preparing federal income tax returns during the ongoing litigation, alleging that he prepared returns that overstated wages, withholdings, and refund amounts for multiple taxpayers through his tax preparation service. The court granted the motion, enjoining Adams from acting as a tax return preparer, engaging in conduct subject to penalties under specific tax code sections, and interfering with internal revenue laws, and requiring him to provide a list of clients. The decision was based on affidavits demonstrating a pattern of inaccurate returns prepared by Adams, his own admissions in letters to customers, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the public interest in proper administration of tax laws.

taxes

The case involved a former employee of a state facility who prevailed in state administrative and judicial proceedings on claims of race and age discrimination in a denied promotion, and then filed suit in federal court seeking only attorney's fees and costs under Title VII from those prior proceedings. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that Fourth Circuit precedent in Chris v. Tenet holds that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over Title VII actions seeking solely attorney's fees rather than enforcement of substantive rights to be free from employment discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a long-running dispute over Volvo's termination of Clark Machinery's Arkansas dealership agreement for motor graders after Volvo acquired the original manufacturer. Following an earlier appeal, the sole remaining issue was Clark's claim that the termination violated the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act (AFPA) because it lacked statutory 'good cause.' The court denied Volvo's motion for summary judgment and granted Clark's cross-motion, holding that the AFPA's good-cause requirement does not encompass a franchisor's market withdrawal or internal business decisions. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language limits good cause to dealer misconduct or similar grounds and that judicial expansion would amount to impermissible rewriting of the law rather than legitimate statutory construction.

business & regulatory

This case involves a copyright infringement claim brought by Pure Country Weavers against Bristar and Paradies over unauthorized reproduction of a textile design called 'In the Wild' on products such as luggage. Paradies asserted cross-claims against Bristar for breach of warranty of title and indemnification under Georgia commercial law arising from their sales relationship. Bristar moved to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that copyright registration had not been obtained prior to filing suit, and for failure to state a claim on the warranty issues. The court reviewed precedents allowing amendment of pleadings or supplemental complaints when registration occurs after filing and determined that the Georgia warranty statute applies to copyright claims, permitting the action to proceed.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between Wachovia Bank and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas arising from a 1999 Asset Funding and Servicing Agreement, with Wachovia seeking at least $56 million in damages in North Carolina state court. Deutsche Bank attempted to remove the case to federal court more than 30 days after service of the complaint, citing a Standstill Agreement and related correspondence as grounds for waiver or estoppel of the timeliness requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order granting Wachovia's motion to remand, holding that magistrate judges have authority to issue remand orders and that the parties' agreements and letters did not extend the statutory removal deadline or support an estoppel claim. The court rejected analogies to prior precedent and denied Deutsche Bank's cross-motion to transfer venue as moot, returning the action to state court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty in consolidated cases to multiple counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, pursuant to a plea agreement that waived most appeal and collateral attack rights except for ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. The court summarily denied the motion, finding the claims of deficient performance by counsel regarding sentencing guidelines calculations and failure to discuss a Supreme Court decision on materiality elements, as well as the claim of prosecutorial misconduct in presenting tax returns to the grand jury, to be conclusory and unsupported. Core reasoning relied on the Strickland standard requiring both deficient performance and prejudice, the petitioner's own admissions and prior Fourth Circuit findings that the returns were falsified, and the absence of any showing that the outcome would have differed. The court noted the plea was knowing and voluntary after a Rule 11 hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether debtor John B. Waterhouse could obtain a discharge of his government-guaranteed student loan debt in Chapter 7 bankruptcy on the ground of undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court found that Waterhouse had not satisfied the Brunner test for undue hardship but nevertheless ordered a partial discharge of the loans above a certain amount. On appeal, the district court reversed that ruling and dismissed the debtor's cross-appeal seeking a full discharge. The court held that, under the statute and Fourth Circuit precedent, no portion of the student loan debt may be discharged absent a finding of undue hardship, and it remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the full amount of the debt.

procedure