Berry Avant Edenfield

This case involves Mexican H-2A guest workers employed by Bland Farms in Georgia onion operations from 2001 to 2006 who sued under the FLSA for unpaid wages and under state law for breach of contract and violation of Georgia’s Right to Work Law, claiming the employer failed to timely reimburse inbound transportation, visa, and recruiting expenses deemed primarily for the employer’s benefit and to pay AEWR wages as promised in DOL clearance orders. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the FLSA, contract, and right-to-work claims, while plaintiffs moved to strike supporting affidavits. The court examined whether third-party fees charged by ILMC, MOA, and CSI were reimbursable under Arriaga precedent and 20 C.F.R. § 655.102, whether those entities acted as agents binding the employer, and whether the clearance order created enforceable contractual obligations for weekly pay and expense reimbursement.

labor & employmentimmigration

This case arose from a breach of contract claim filed by Rayonier Wood Products in Georgia state court against ScanWare and its owner FinScan over a lumber grading system that allegedly failed to meet performance standards, with the contract specifying exclusive jurisdiction in Emanuel County courts. After ScanWare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Oregon, FinScan removed the action to the Georgia bankruptcy court, which granted Rayonier's motion to remand and abstain under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(1) and 1452(b) without first transferring venue. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by prioritizing remand based on the forum selection clause, comity, and equitable factors over competing venue transfer arguments, and that the home court was not required to decide abstention issues first.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, fourteen Mexican farm workers employed under the H-2A program sued Shannon Produce Farm under the Fair Labor Standards Act's anti-retaliation provision, claiming the farm refused to rehire them for the 2006-2008 seasons in retaliation for their participation in a prior FLSA lawsuit. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the FLSA does not apply extraterritorially to foreign workers denied rehire abroad. The court denied the motion, holding that the anti-retaliation claim is viable because it seeks to protect enforcement of U.S. workplace standards rather than regulate foreign employment conditions, and the workers' prior U.S. employment qualified them for protection under the Act.

labor & employment

This case involves H-2A guestworkers who sued their employer, Bland Farms, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay minimum wages. The plaintiffs requested a protective order to prevent the defendants from contacting them, potential opt-in plaintiffs, and their families, citing alleged intimidation through visits and calls in Mexico. The court granted a limited protective order prohibiting in-person and telephone communications about the lawsuit but permitting written communications with advance notice to plaintiffs' counsel and formal discovery. The reasoning focused on the risk of coercion due to the employment relationship while preserving the defendants' ability to defend the case and investigate facts.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns Meier Jason Brown's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief after his federal conviction and death sentence for the robbery and murder of a postal employee. The district court outlines the governing standards for resolving such motions, including the need for plenary review, the procedural default doctrine requiring a showing of cause and prejudice (or actual innocence) for claims not raised at trial or on direct appeal, and the requirements for obtaining discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Applying these rules, the court addresses Brown's various claims, such as alleged missing transcripts and ineffective assistance, and denies relief on procedurally barred or meritless grounds without holding an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Brown v. Chertoff, plaintiff Peter Brown sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging retaliation under Title VII for his prior EEO complaints and other protected activity that led to his termination from a Customs and Border Protection laboratory position. The remaining claim centered on whether his firing for insubordination and related conduct was pretextual. After discovery disputes involving destroyed notes from an employee relations specialist, the court addressed Brown's motion for spoliation sanctions. The court granted the sanctions motion in part, finding the destruction warranted a rebuttable adverse inference instruction to the jury that the notes contained evidence of pretext, but denied harsher sanctions because Brown could alleviate prejudice through other testimony. It also denied the government's renewed summary judgment motion without prejudice, allowing renewal within 15 days after accepting Brown's pretext showing for purposes of opposing summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved an Administrative Procedure Act challenge by Ogeechee-Canoochee Riverkeeper, Inc. to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision exempting a proposed 60-acre timber harvest from a manmade lake in Georgia from Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements under the "normal on-going silviculture" exemption. After the landowner abandoned the harvest plan, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the exemption determination was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the Corps' motion, concluding based on the administrative record that the Corps had not properly determined the harvest was part of an established ongoing silviculture operation requiring reasonable assurance of tree regeneration. The court also found the recapture provision issue moot given the absence of any water-level management requirement in the submitted plan.

environmentprocedurefederal power

Ardus Medical, Inc. brought a collection action against Emanuel County Hospital Authority after the hospital refused to pay for IV pumps that Ardus had delivered following negotiations and a purchase order. Ardus moved for summary judgment, contending that the transaction created an enforceable obligation. The hospital opposed the motion, pointing to evidence that the purchase order was expressly made contingent on board approval, that no such approval was ever obtained, and that hospital officials lacked authority to finalize purchases above a certain amount without board action. The court applied federal summary judgment standards and analyzed the facts under Georgia contract and UCC rules governing merchants, including requirements for writings, contingent terms, and the statute of frauds, to determine whether a binding contract had been formed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, Friedman’s Inc. collapsed and entered Chapter 11 proceedings, leading the Creditor Trust’s Trustee to sue the company’s attorneys Alston & Bird along with other parties for claims including preferential transfers (Count XIII) and fraudulent conveyances (Count XIV). The court had previously dismissed those two counts against Alston & Bird on res judicata grounds, concluding that the confirmed bankruptcy plan failed to expressly reserve avoidance actions. On the Trustee’s motion for reconsideration, the court reviewed the complete plan language defining “Trust Claims,” “Causes of Action,” and “Avoidance Claims,” which together expressly preserved preferential-transfer and fraudulent-conveyance claims against attorneys. The court therefore granted reconsideration, vacated its earlier dismissal of those counts as to Alston & Bird, and reinstated them. It separately denied Alston & Bird’s motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on its in pari delicto defense.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Lynn, the defendant, facing charges of conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute anabolic steroids, felon-in-possession of firearms, and criminal forfeiture, moved to suppress evidence from warrant-based searches of his home and business plus statements made to DEA agents. After a hearing and de novo review with no objections filed, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the motion in full. The core reasoning was that both warrants were supported by probable cause—one from a trash pull revealing steroid-related items at the residence and the other from the defendant's own emails and information about ongoing dealings at the business—and that the statements were voluntary because Miranda warnings were given, no coercion or threats occurred, the defendant appeared alert and cooperative, and he was told he was not under arrest and free to leave.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Trustee of Friedman's Creditor Trust filing an adversary complaint against the jewelry retailer's directors, officers, controlling shareholder Phillip Cohen and his investment firm Morgan Schiff, and its attorneys, alleging 15 counts of wrongdoing connected to the company's financial collapse and 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court reviewed the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard in light of Twombly, requiring factual allegations sufficient to raise claims above the speculative level while accepting well-pleaded facts as true, and noted rules for considering external documents referenced in the complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a criminal RICO prosecution arising from a prescription-drug fraud scheme, in which corporate and individual defendants were convicted by a jury and ordered to pay roughly $70 million in combined fines, assessments, forfeiture, and restitution. The government sought to continue a pre-sentencing receivership to liquidate assets, including real property in which the defendants' wives claimed ownership interests, while the wives moved to stay further liquidation pending exhaustion of appeals and raised jurisdictional objections. The court examined the parties' consent orders establishing joint-and-several liability and authorizing the receiver to liquidate assets without further court order, the incorporation of those orders into the sentencing judgments, and the effect of pending appeals under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(d). It concluded that the consent orders permitted continued collection efforts and that appeals did not automatically halt the receiver's authority to proceed.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

Peter Brown, a chemist terminated by the Department of Homeland Security, sued the agency and its secretary under Title VII, the ADEA, the CSRA, the APA, and the First and Fifth Amendments, alleging retaliation, discrimination, and constitutional violations. The court had previously granted summary judgment on the CSRA appeal of the MSPB decision upholding the termination and dismissed the First Amendment and ADEA claims. In this order, the court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the remaining Fifth Amendment claims. The core reasoning was that the CSRA supplies the exclusive remedial scheme for federal employees asserting constitutional violations arising from their employment, so separate Bivens-style damages or APA injunctive relief are unavailable under precedents such as Bush v. Lucas and Stephens v. Department of Health & Human Services.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

Roger Pattee sued his former employer, the Georgia Ports Authority, claiming he was terminated in retaliation for sending emails about port security flaws that prompted a state investigation, during which he cooperated and disclosed colleague information in violation of policy. As trial neared, the parties filed motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence including testimony from officials who allegedly eavesdropped on a meeting via speakerphone, the employer's lawyer's advice on termination, evidence of Pattee's poor job performance, and his out-of-pocket medical expenses. The court ruled that federal law, including the Wiretap Act and its business extension and consent exemptions, governs the eavesdropping issue in this federal-question case and analyzed whether the interceptions were lawful; it also addressed the relevance of performance evidence under rules like FRE 404 while noting that the accuracy of Pattee's protected complaints was irrelevant, and it limited or permitted certain damages and other proofs accordingly.

free speechlabor & employmentcriminal law

The case involved Brasseler USA seeking a temporary restraining order against GBL and its subsidiary Komet in an unfair trade practices dispute, alleging that Komet's advertisements, letters, and salespeople made false statements about the companies' relationship, such as claiming Komet was the parent of Brasseler USA, that Brasseler USA was going out of business, and mischaracterizing an expired exclusive supply agreement, in violation of the Lanham Act and Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, issuing an injunction barring specific statements during the litigation while allowing others that were not deemed false or misleading. The core reasoning focused on Brasseler USA's substantial likelihood of success on the merits for certain false description claims likely to cause confusion, combined with irreparable injury, a balance of harms favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Vivian Johnson suing her former employer, Ogeechee Behavioral Health Services (a Georgia community service board providing services to the developmentally disabled), under Title I of the ADA after she was terminated following her diagnosis of erosive osteoarthritis and requests for accommodation. Ogeechee moved for summary judgment, primarily arguing it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the State of Georgia. The court analyzed this claim under the four-factor Manders test, examining how state law defines the entity, the degree of state control, the source of its funds, and responsibility for judgments against it, while also noting an alternative motion on the merits of the ADA claim.

civil rightsfederal powerlabor & employment

This case involves Roger Pattee, a former Georgia Port Police officer terminated after emailing concerns about port security flaws to a member of Georgia’s Homeland Security Task Force, which prompted an official investigation. Pattee sued the Georgia Ports Authority and executives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation, and under the Georgia Whistleblower Act, with his wife adding a loss of consortium claim. The court granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by dismissing the Whistleblower Act claim with prejudice while denying summary judgment on the § 1983 and loss of consortium claims, allowing those to proceed to trial. The ruling on the state-law claim turned on the requirements of the pre-amendment version of the Whistleblower Act and the absence of a qualifying internal report.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from the termination of Roger Pattee, a Georgia Port Police officer, after he emailed concerns about port security deficiencies and management practices to a member of Georgia’s Homeland Security Task Force, which prompted an investigation by the state Office of the Inspector General. Pattee sued the Georgia Ports Authority, its executive director, and deputy director under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation, and also brought claims under the Georgia Whistleblower Act along with a loss of consortium claim by his wife. The defendants moved for summary judgment after removing the case to federal court. The court examined whether Pattee’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, whether he spoke as a citizen rather than pursuant to official duties, and whether his disclosure of fellow officers’ contact information violated department rules, while emphasizing that disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to Pattee on summary judgment.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involves plaintiff Elliot Tillman suing a drug task force officer and training defendants over the officer's use of a taser during Tillman's arrest for a suspected misdemeanor drug sale, alleging excessive force and related violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments along with parallel claims under the Georgia Constitution. The court addressed only the officer's motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred under Georgia's two-year statute of limitations, noting that the complaint was filed timely but service occurred 110 days later. The core reasoning examines whether Georgia's diligent-service rule for relating service back to the filing date applies in a federal-question case with supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, considering the Erie doctrine, federal procedural rules on service, and distinctions between federal and diversity jurisdiction.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves inmate Edward Barber, who has filed numerous lawsuits in federal court without paying filing fees and has been subject to prior sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barring further filings until his accumulated debts are paid, subject to narrow exceptions for criminal matters, reconsideration, or denial of state court access. Barber repeatedly attempted to evade these orders by filing new complaints raising ADA and other claims in other districts, including this action against the U.S. Attorney General, which was transferred back to the Southern District of Georgia. The court dismissed the case with prejudice for violating the prior sanctions and, exercising its inherent docket-management authority, authorized Georgia prison officials to open and inspect Barber's outgoing mail to the court, withhold postage from non-appeal filings, and potentially block all such mail if he uses his own resources, with the restriction set to last two years.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights