The case involves former LEA employees and directors Feldman and Perry, who reported suspected illegal export activities by Carrington through SAFE Source to federal authorities and were later terminated or removed from the board by the other directors. They sued the company, its directors, and Carrington for claims including wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, reasoning that no explicit statutory public policy supported the wrongful discharge claims under North Carolina law, that obstruction of justice allegations were inadequately pled or inapplicable, and that intracorporate immunity defeated the conspiracy claim.
The case concerned a surety company's request for a preliminary injunction to enforce a general indemnity agreement against a contractor and related parties. First National had issued payment and performance bonds for Sappah Brothers' public construction projects and faced claims exceeding $1.3 million, but the defendants had refused demands to post collateral security or provide access to financial records. The court analyzed the four preliminary injunction factors under Fourth Circuit precedent and found that First National was likely to succeed on its breach-of-contract claim for specific performance of the collateral security and records provisions, that it faced irreparable harm without the relief, and that the equities and public interest favored an injunction. It granted the motion in part by ordering the defendants to post $1,320,056 in collateral or equivalent property liens, conditioned on First National posting a $574,000 bond, while noting the defendants did not oppose inspection of their records.
This case involved two Dollar General store managers who sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking unpaid overtime compensation on the ground that they did not qualify for the executive exemption. The defendant moved for summary judgment after discovery, contending that the plaintiffs' duties, salaries, and authority met the exemption criteria. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that the plaintiffs' weekly salaries exceeded the regulatory threshold, their primary duties consisted of management, they customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more employees, and they had authority to make hiring, firing, and promotion recommendations given particular weight, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
The case involves a former employee of the Town of Holly Springs who sued under Title VII alleging gender discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation after she complained about vulgar language and gender-based comments from coworkers when transitioning to a firefighter role. The court dismissed the hostile work environment claim, concluding that the use of profanity was not directed at the plaintiff, not objectively based on gender, and not severe enough to support such a claim, and that her opposition activity was not protected. The court denied dismissal of the disparate treatment and retaliation claims, finding that the assignment to a different station and delays in providing equipment could constitute materially adverse actions potentially linked to gender or complaints about discrimination.
This case is a declaratory judgment action by Geico seeking a ruling on whether its uninsured motorist policy covers a claim for the death of Ana Larson, who was struck by a rock that fell from an unidentified dump truck, causing her vehicle to crash without any direct vehicle-to-vehicle contact. The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the federal case in favor of a related state court action, while Geico moved for summary judgment on the coverage issue. The court denied the motion to dismiss or stay after analyzing the Nautilus factors, finding that the state court had already abated proceedings and that federal resolution would not cause entanglement or forum shopping. On the merits, the court interpreted the policy and North Carolina law to require physical contact with an uninsured vehicle for coverage, which was absent here, and granted summary judgment to Geico.
In Ibrahim v. Chertoff, a permanent U.S. resident filed an N-400 naturalization application in 2004 that remained unadjudicated after more than three years because the required FBI criminal background check had not been completed, leading him to seek a writ of mandamus and relief under the APA to compel the government to schedule an interview and decide the application. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that federal courts have only limited authority and that the pace of background investigations and adjudications involves discretionary functions. The court examined jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, APA, and Declaratory Judgment Act, noting that mandamus requires a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act and that naturalization statutes mandate completion of the FBI check before adjudication can occur. After reviewing the statutes, regulations, and precedent, the court concluded that the timing and manner of completing background checks are discretionary matters not subject to judicial compulsion via mandamus or APA review, while acknowledging a general nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate applications within a reasonable time once prerequisites are met.
