District Court, N.D. Georgia — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Baltimore Football Club, Inc. v. Lockheed Corp.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981-11-16 · cited 9×
This diversity jurisdiction case involved a Delaware corporation that purchased a used Lockheed Jetstar airplane manufactured in Georgia; after discovering cracks in the mainframe in 1979 and repairing them in Wisconsin, the buyer sued Lockheed in federal court in Wisconsin (later transferred to Georgia) for strict liability and negligence, seeking repair costs and economic losses from the plane's downtime. The court first resolved a choice-of-law dispute under Georgia's lex loci delicti rule, determining that Georgia substantive law applied because the place of injury was indeterminate and Georgia had the most significant contacts, consistent with a similar Seventh Circuit decision. Under Georgia law, the court held that a corporate plaintiff lacks standing to recover purely economic losses in strict liability and cannot recover such losses in negligence absent personal injury or damage to other property. The court therefore granted Lockheed's motion for judgment on the pleadings on both counts.
proceduretorts & liability
Hammond v. James W. Griffin Co., Inc.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981-08-17 · cited 13×
This case under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA involved trustees of employee benefit funds suing a construction company and its owner for unpaid contributions to fringe benefit trusts under a collective bargaining agreement with a union local. The dispute centered on whether a tractor operator named Atkinson was an employee covered by the agreement or an independent contractor for whom no contributions were owed. The court adopted the special master's factual findings and legal conclusion that Atkinson was an employee, based on common-law agency factors such as the employer's control over work assignments, provision of tools and support, long-term exclusive relationship, and the worker's lack of independent business operations or risk. As a result, the court held the defendants liable for contributions plus liquidated damages and interest on most claims, but denied all requests for attorney's fees after weighing equitable factors under ERISA. The court also made a minor adjustment denying liquidated damages to one fund while allowing it a share of audit costs.
labor & employment
Dunten v. Kibler
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981-07-24 · cited 14×
This case involved a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a psychologist employed at a state mental health center who alleged that her supervisors retaliated against her with a negative performance review after she provided information to a newspaper reporter about practices at the center, claiming violations of her First Amendment rights as well as due process and free association. After the court granted summary judgment to defendants on the due process claim, a jury found for the plaintiff on her First Amendment claim against two defendants and awarded nominal damages of one dollar. The matter before the court was the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, in which she sought over $15,000. The court granted fees but reduced the award substantially by excluding time spent on unsuccessful claims that lacked merit or had no overlap with the successful claim, adjusting for vague billing entries, applying different rates for in-court and out-of-court time, and considering other Johnson factors such as the limited results obtained.
civil rightsfree speechprocedure
Lavine v. General Mills, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981-07-02 · cited 32×
The case involved a plaintiff who purchased a South Pacific tour package through travel agencies and was injured when she slipped on a rock during an optional cruise in Fiji. She sued the defendants under negligence, warranty, and contract theories for failing to warn of hazards, protect her as an invitee, provide adequate medical care, and select competent operators. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, finding no factual issues for trial. The core reasoning was that the defendants were not the plaintiff's agents, provided no warranty of safety, and breached no duty, as they neither caused nor contributed to the slip and were not insurers of her safety aboard the vessel.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Isaac v. Butler's Shoe Corp.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1980-12-19 · cited 2×
This case is an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which the plaintiff alleged he was constructively discharged by Butler’s Shoe Corporation because he grew a beard and attended a religious gathering consistent with his Church of God beliefs, plus a related state-law tortious interference claim against individual defendants. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the Title VII claim challenging its no-beard policy and the constitutionality of Title VII’s religious accommodation provision, but granted the motion to strike the jury demand on the diversity tort claim. The core reasoning applied the three-part Nyquist test to uphold the accommodation requirement as having a secular purpose of preventing religious discrimination without advancing religion or causing excessive entanglement, following precedents such as Cummins v. Parker Seal Co., and struck the jury demand because the plaintiff did not oppose it.
labor & employmentreligious libertycivil rights
Chastain Ex Rel. Chastain v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1980-09-29 · cited 1×
This case concerns a claim for survivor benefits under an ERISA-governed disability and survivorship plan offered by Delta Air Lines to the family of a deceased employee. The plaintiff, the employee's ex-wife acting on behalf of their minor children, sought monthly income benefits after the plan administrator determined that the children did not qualify as eligible family members because they did not live in the employee's household or receive more than half their support from him, and she was not recognized as his common-law spouse. The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the jury demand, holding that ERISA actions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) do not carry a right to a jury trial. On the summary judgment motion, the court remanded the matter to the plan's Administrative Committee for further proceedings to apply the plan's definitions correctly to the facts of support and household status.
labor & employment