William Earl Britt

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.

labor & employmentcriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

This case concerns challenges to the civil commitment provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, which allow the federal government to indefinitely detain federal prisoners certified as sexually dangerous persons beyond their sentence expiration. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 4248 exceeds Congress's constitutional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause because it permits commitment without a sufficient connection to federal interests, as the underlying conduct is primarily regulated by states. Additionally, the statute's use of a clear and convincing evidence standard for commitment, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, violates substantive due process when the commitment requires findings of past criminal conduct.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a constitutional challenge by judicial candidates and affiliated political committees to North Carolina's voluntary public campaign financing system for state appellate court elections, targeting provisions that require expedited reporting of large contributions or expenditures by nonparticipating candidates, provide matching 'rescue funds' to participating candidates when triggers are met, impose a 21-day pre-election contribution ban, and fund the system through a mandatory State Bar fee. The court dismissed plaintiff Jackson's claims against the reporting, rescue-funds, and contribution-ban provisions for lack of standing, dismissed the challenge to the bar fee for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Denial of injunctive relief rested on the conclusion that the balance of equities and public interest favored maintaining the status quo, given participating candidates' reliance on the system's limits and the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.

electionsfree speech

This case involved a former Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist who sought long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan insured by Continental Casualty Company after developing an addiction to Fentanyl and receiving treatment for depression. The insurer initially approved benefits but later terminated them, determining there was insufficient evidence of functional impairment preventing the plaintiff from performing the duties of his occupation. The plaintiff appealed the denial, citing restrictions on his nursing license, risk of relapse around narcotics, and medication side effects, but the insurer upheld its decision. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ERISA claim, finding the administrator's decision reasonable based on the administrative record, including physician statements indicating no cognitive impairments. The court also addressed and denied the motion to seal the record without appropriate redactions.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned competitive local exchange carriers (NuVox and NewSouth) that had entered interconnection agreements with BellSouth allowing conversion of certain circuits to lower-cost EELs, subject to audit provisions; after the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) ruled that BellSouth could conduct audits without first demonstrating a specific concern under FCC orders, the carriers sued in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief against the NCUC orders. The court addressed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Telecommunications Act following the Supreme Court’s Verizon Maryland decision and related Fourth Circuit precedent. It concluded that the dispute primarily involved interpretation of the parties’ agreements under state law rather than a substantial, forefront federal question, and therefore dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction while dissolving the preliminary injunction that had been in place.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Penske Truck Leasing's claim that Republic Western Insurance breached its duty to defend and indemnify under a commercial auto liability policy in which Penske was named an additional insured. An employee of the primary insured, Bridgeways, was injured while working on a Penske-leased vehicle and sued Penske; Republic denied coverage citing the policy's worker’s compensation and employee-injury exclusions. After Penske defended the suit at its own expense and later settled, it sued Republic for a declaratory judgment of coverage. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the policy’s severability-of-interests clause caused the exclusions to apply separately to each insured, so they did not bar coverage for Penske when sued by an employee of another insured; judgment was therefore entered for Penske.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved Illinois homeowners suing the manufacturers of defective windows and exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) cladding installed in their home, alleging negligence and strict liability after water intrusion caused structural damage, personal property loss, and mold contamination. The court, applying Illinois substantive law in this multidistrict proceeding, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings. It held that the claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine because the alleged harms constituted deterioration from product defects rather than sudden or dangerous occurrences, with no viable exception for consumer purchases or mold risks. The case was dismissed in full, and related third-party motions were denied.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case arose when plaintiff James C. Greene Company, a North Carolina insurance adjusting firm, sued its professional liability insurer Great American E & S and the insurer's managing agent for a declaratory judgment of coverage and damages for unfair trade practices after coverage was denied for two underlying state-court tort suits. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the policy's clause requiring binding arbitration of any dispute arising out of the policy. The court granted the motion, holding that the non-party agent could enforce the clause because the claims were intertwined with and dependent on the insured-insurer relationship, and directing that arbitration occur in North Carolina rather than New York because the selected forum was gravely inconvenient to the plaintiff and contrary to North Carolina public policy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a claim by a former prison inmate that he created the "First in Flight" North Carolina license plate design in 1978 while assigned to Prison Industries, and that the state and others infringed his copyright by using the design on license plates. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had no ownership rights because the design was a work made for hire or, alternatively, that the claim was barred by laches. The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, reasoning that even though the design was created off-site during non-working hours, it was made in direct response to a supervisor's request and primarily to serve the employer's needs, satisfying the scope-of-employment test for work made for hire under copyright law with no signed writing transferring rights. Thus ownership vested in Prison Industries and ultimately the State of North Carolina.

propertylabor & employment

In Wilson v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., homeowners sued the manufacturer of an exterior cladding system (Fastrak) installed on their North Carolina house, alleging that defects caused moisture intrusion, deterioration, and damage; they brought claims for negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unfair trade practices. Dryvit moved for summary judgment, which the court granted after plaintiffs failed to respond, dismissing all claims. The court held that North Carolina’s economic loss rule barred the negligence claims because plaintiffs alleged only damage to the house itself, not other property, so any recovery must come from contract rather than tort. The misrepresentation and fraud claims failed for lack of evidence that Dryvit had a duty to disclose defects not discoverable through diligent inspection or that plaintiffs relied on any statements. The unfair trade practices claim likewise failed because it depended on the same unsupported allegations of misrepresentation or fraud.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves the United States, on behalf of HUD, suing the Dove Meadows Partnership, its owners, and related entities for alleged violations of a Regulatory Agreement tied to a HUD-insured mortgage on a North Carolina apartment project. The government claims defendants made unauthorized repayments of owner advances from project funds without prior HUD approval, in breach of provisions limiting distributions and expenditures to surplus cash or reasonable operating expenses, and seeks double damages under 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-4a plus a constructive trust. Defendants counterclaimed under the APA and FOIA and moved for summary judgment, while the government cross-moved and sought to exclude expert testimony. The court examined the Regulatory Agreement language, HUD handbooks, and evidence on the advances' purposes, finding that repayments generally require approval and that defendants failed to adequately document use for operating expenses, leaving material factual disputes (including the exact unauthorized amount) for trial; it also resolved various dismissal and procedural motions. Remaining claims center on the equity-skimming allegations and counterclaims.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In Eagle Nation, Inc. v. Market Force, Inc., a Texas corporation sued a North Carolina advertising company and its owners for breach of contract, negligence, fraud and fraudulent inducement, and civil conspiracy arising from an October 1996 agreement for advertising services that plaintiff terminated in April 1997. After multiple prior filings in Texas courts were dismissed, plaintiff refiled the action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in August 2000. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing the claims were barred by North Carolina's three-year statutes of limitations. The court granted the motion, holding that North Carolina procedural law governs statutes of limitations regardless of any choice-of-law clause or the location of events, that the contract claim accrued no later than July 1997 upon termination, and that the remaining tort claims accrued upon the underlying acts or discovery of fraud, all of which occurred more than three years before suit was filed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Michael J. Blohm, an assistant store manager at Dillard's, suing the company and several supervisors for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after he sought time off around the birth of his child. Plaintiff had notified his supervisor of his intent to use accrued vacation time in January 1999 for the birth but did not complete formal FMLA paperwork, and the employer later required him to participate in inventory work shortly after the birth. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court analyzed the FMLA's provisions on entitlements to leave, noting that the statute sets substantive floors for employers, applies on a gender-neutral basis, and counts paid vacation against the 12-week maximum, while regulations permit approximate dates for foreseeable events like childbirth.

labor & employmentfamily law

The case involved the United States suing employee Terry Bankert, Jymco Development, Inc., and its owner Jimmy Ray Whitley for alleged racial discrimination against white homebuyers Kimberly and Cary Bruton and African-American mortgage lender Isaac Woods during a modular home sale, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint detailed how, after learning of Woods' race, the defendants made racially derogatory statements, delayed loan processing, and pressured transfer of the loan to a different lender, causing the deal to collapse and the Brutons to lose their earnest money. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated claims of discrimination in the availability and terms of a residential real estate-related transaction on the basis of race, with resulting injury to both the Brutons and Woods.

civil rightsproperty

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance and Hardin plaintiffs against Travelers Indemnity Company over whether Travelers must defend Hardin in a North Carolina state-court personal injury suit filed by a subcontractor's employee who fell into an unguarded pool during HVAC work at a hotel construction site. The motion for partial summary judgment addresses Hardin's status as an additional insured under the blanket endorsement in J & A Mechanical's Travelers policy, which covers liability arising out of the subcontractor's work. Applying North Carolina law per the state's insurance statute, the court analyzes the endorsement's scope in light of the underlying tort claim, distinguishing between direct liability for inherently dangerous activities and vicarious liability under precedents like Woodson v. Rowland. The court notes that a general contractor's duty in such contexts is direct and not derivative of the subcontractor's negligence.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure