Clarence Cooper

The case involved a local exchange carrier, Public Service Telephone Company (PSTC), challenging orders by the Georgia Public Service Commission that required PSTC to treat certain calls to numbers assigned to wireless carriers Alltel and Verizon Wireless as local traffic under interconnection agreements, rather than as toll traffic subject to access charges. PSTC sought a permanent injunction in federal district court, arguing that the Commission's rulings on call rating, routing, and compensation violated federal telecommunications law and state procedures. The court denied injunctive relief and entered judgment for the Commission and the wireless carriers. It reasoned that PSTC had not shown actual success on the merits, that monetary damages provided an adequate remedy, and that the public interest favored efficient and competitive telecommunications services consistent with the Telecommunications Act.

business & regulatory

This case is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Ryan Goldstein against Home Depot, alleging that the company and its installers used prohibited metal foil or non-metal flexible vents when installing clothes dryers purchased from the store, contrary to manufacturer warnings and specifications, which allegedly voided warranties and created fire hazards. Plaintiff claimed breach of contract and related harms after discovering the improper vent on his own Maytag dryer years after installation. The court granted in part and denied in part Home Depot's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It denied the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, reasoning that the named plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he faced no real or immediate threat of future injury and would receive no personal benefit from the requested injunction, regardless of class certification status.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Peoples sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the National Cancer Institute's decision not to recommend Spiral CT scans for early lung cancer detection in smokers like himself, seeking to make such scans covered by insurance. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit under Article III of the Constitution. The core reasoning was that Peoples failed to allege a concrete and imminent injury in fact, as he had not actually undergone the test, sought insurance approval, or shown that he would be unable to pay without the recommendation, making any harm speculative. The dismissal was without prejudice.

healthcareprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by three migrant farmworkers employed by Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., a Georgia forestry company, and its owner Jerry Eller, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) related to wages, unreimbursed travel and visa expenses, recordkeeping, and other protections for H-2B visa workers recruited from Guatemala and other countries. The court addressed multiple partial summary judgment motions on issues including employer status, applicability of FLSA to foreign conduct, compensability of travel time, reimbursement obligations for inbound expenses, statute of limitations, and AWPA recordkeeping compliance, along with a sanctions motion. It denied the defendants' motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding no bad faith or vexatious conduct by plaintiffs and noting substantial compliance with local rules despite the volume of facts asserted. On the merits, the court rejected several of defendants' positions, such as claims that workers were not employees during recruitment or that certain DOL guidance provided a complete defense, while deferring some AWPA issues pending further hearings.

labor & employmentimmigration

The consolidated cases concerned whether the Georgia Public Service Commission had authority under federal law to set rates for access to certain network facilities and services that BellSouth must provide to satisfy the competitive checklist in 47 U.S.C. § 271 after those facilities were no longer required as unbundled network elements under § 251. The district court held that the PSC lacks authority to set rates for § 271 checklist items. The court reached this conclusion after examining the statutory division of responsibilities between the FCC and state commissions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which assigns the determination of compliance with § 271 conditions solely to the FCC. The court remanded the remaining issues in BellSouth's case to the PSC for further consideration in light of this ruling.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute over disability insurance benefits under a policy issued by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company to Dr. Neil Gladstone, a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist. Dr. Gladstone claimed total disability benefits after developing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that prevented him from performing hospital-based surgery, though he continued his office-based gynecological practice; the insurer classified him as only residually disabled and paid corresponding benefits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the contract claim for additional benefits and a related bad-faith claim under Georgia law. The court denied both motions, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding the timing of the disability onset, the deterioration of surgical skills, or the inclusion of hospital surgery within the insured's defined occupation, but concluding that summary judgment was nonetheless inappropriate on the ultimate questions of total versus residual disability.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

Lawrence Jefferson, a Georgia prisoner convicted of felony murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence. The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The ruling followed a review of the trial evidence showing Jefferson's connection to the victim and crime scene, the procedural history of state court proceedings, and various claims including alleged prosecutorial misconduct and racial bias in the death penalty decision.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case concerns a constitutional challenge by European Connections & Tours, Inc., an operator of websites and services matching American men with foreign women, primarily from Eastern Europe, to the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA). The plaintiff alleged that IMBRA's requirements for disclosing background information on male clients violate the First Amendment as an impermissible prior restraint, content-based restriction, and overbroad regulation of commercial speech, while its definition of covered international marriage brokers—including certain nonprofit and non-principal-business entities—violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) and, after considering evidence and arguments, issued findings of fact detailing the plaintiff's business operations, client interactions, and the statutory definitions and disclosure mandates at issue.

immigrationfree speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves migrant agricultural workers suing their employer under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) for alleged breaches of employment contracts documented in job orders and disclosures. The court ruled that the applicable statute of limitations is Georgia's six-year period for written contracts (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24) rather than the two-year wage-claim period, as the claims center on written working arrangements and align with the AWPA's remedial goals. The court then granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions to compel production of documents including payroll records and visas, responses to most interrogatories, and compliance with a subpoena, ordering the defendant to produce the required materials within 45 days.

labor & employmentprocedure

This ERISA case involves a former Bank of America employee seeking long-term disability benefits under the company's group benefits plan administered by MetLife. The court addressed multiple discovery motions, including a motion to compel and a protective order request, by first determining the applicable standard of review. After examining the plan documents, the court concluded that the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard applies because MetLife had discretion to decide claims but operated under a conflict of interest. The court permitted discovery beyond the administrative record to allow the plaintiff to obtain evidence regarding MetLife's self-interest and claims-handling practices, consistent with Eleventh Circuit precedent on conflicts in ERISA benefit determinations.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regarding the calculation of long-term disability benefits under a group policy issued to the plaintiff's former employer. The plaintiff argued that his Social Security disability benefits should be deducted from 60% of his pre-disability earnings before applying the policy's maximum benefit cap, while the defendants maintained that the offset should be applied directly to the maximum monthly benefit of $3,500. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the policy language unambiguously required deduction of other income sources, including Social Security, from the maximum benefit amount, resulting in a net benefit of $2,215 per month. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for additional benefits and breach of fiduciary duty, concluding that no ambiguity existed and that adhering to the policy terms did not violate fiduciary duties.

labor & employment

The case involved three plaintiffs who worked as Assistant Managers at Advance Auto Parts stores and sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging they were misclassified as exempt employees and owed overtime pay. The court granted the defendant's motions for summary judgment against each plaintiff. It found that the plaintiffs qualified for the executive exemption because they were paid a salary exceeding the regulatory threshold, their primary duties involved management of the store and employees with significant discretion, and they regularly directed the work of two or more employees. The court struck portions of the plaintiffs' declarations that contradicted their deposition testimony or lacked factual support, concluding that the record showed no genuine issue of material fact regarding their exempt status.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a former employee who sued his employer for breach of a retention and severance bonus agreement, along with related claims including breach of good faith, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, and defamation, after his termination. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the agreement requiring arbitration of employment disputes and allocating costs equally. The court granted the motion under the Federal Arbitration Act, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate that covered the claims, and ordered the parties to select an arbitrator and proceed with arbitration while staying the federal proceedings. The court reasoned that the FAA establishes a strong policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements and that the cost-sharing provision did not render the agreement unenforceable in this instance.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Selman v. Cobb County School District, parents of students in the district sued the school board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a sticker inserted into certain science textbooks—which noted that evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things—violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment) and a parallel provision of the Georgia Constitution. The case presented a facial challenge focused solely on the sticker's constitutionality, not on classroom practices or broader curriculum debates. After a trial, the court applied the Lemon test to the sticker's text, adoption history, and context, concluding that it had the purpose and primary effect of advancing or endorsing a religious viewpoint by singling out evolution for special disclaimer. The court therefore held the sticker unconstitutional and granted declaratory and injunctive relief.

religious libertycivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Bella Zaslavaskaya Boex, of Russian-Jewish ancestry, sued her former employer OFS Fitel, LLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging her termination from a Product Manager role was due to race/ancestry discrimination; she also brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons—unsatisfactory performance including poor communication with sales teams and customers, inadequate product plans, and failure to manage key accounts—were pretextual, as the evidence showed documented performance issues and no proof of discriminatory animus by the decision-makers.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment in a dispute over disability insurance benefits under a group policy issued by New York Life to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Plaintiff Abdul Kocer, a physician whose Arkansas medical license was revoked in 1999 following findings of gross negligence, malpractice, and other violations, claimed he was totally or residually disabled from his occupation due to various medical conditions. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that Kocer's inability to work stemmed from the revocation of his license rather than a covered sickness or injury under the policy, that he failed to provide timely satisfactory proof of loss, and that he was not under regular care of a doctor as required. The opinion further noted that Kocer's income decline was attributable to the license revocation and other non-disability factors, and that he could not qualify for residual benefits given his legal bar from practicing medicine.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, in which Petitioner Roberto Giampaolo, the father of a minor child born in Argentina, sought the child's return from the United States after Respondent Evelina Erneta removed her in 2002. The court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the parties had lived together in Argentina, executed an agreement granting Respondent custody with broad visitation to Petitioner, and that Petitioner maintained regular contact and exercised his rights of custody, including under the concept of patria potestas, until the removal. The court concluded that Respondent's removal violated Petitioner's custody rights, that Petitioner was exercising those rights at the time, and that no affirmative defenses applied. Accordingly, the court ordered the child returned to Argentina forthwith.

family law

In Kerr v. McDonald's Corp., two former employees filed age discrimination charges with the EEOC after their October 2001 terminations and later requested right-to-sue letters in December 2002. The court granted McDonald's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the May 2003 lawsuit as untimely under the ADEA's 90-day filing requirement. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs knew by early January 2003 that the EEOC had ended its investigation, evidence showed the right-to-sue letters were mailed and received around that time or shortly after, and the plaintiffs failed to produce contrary evidence establishing a later receipt date that would make their complaint timely.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Rosenthal v. United Van Lines, the plaintiffs brought claims against several moving and storage companies arising from a relocation dispute. After the parties reached a settlement, they jointly moved to vacate the court's prior published opinion and to dismiss the action. The district court granted the motion, vacated its earlier decision at 174 F.Supp.2d 1331, and dismissed the case with prejudice without costs to either side, each party to bear its own attorneys' fees, relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent permitting vacatur in connection with settlement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiffs sued a moving company and related defendants in state court over an interstate household goods move from Illinois to Georgia, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of bailment, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium based on unauthorized handling, damage, and improper delivery of their property. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that the claims arose under or were preempted by the Carmack Amendment, which governs carrier liability for loss or damage to goods in interstate commerce. The court held that the complaint did not present a federal question on its face under the well-pleaded complaint rule, so it lacked original federal-question jurisdiction, but concluded that the Carmack Amendment completely preempted the state-law claims concerning property loss and damage. It therefore denied the motion to remand, allowed plaintiffs to amend to assert a Carmack claim, and denied dismissal of the emotional distress and loss of consortium claims because those were not preempted.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability