Louise W. Flanagan

This case is an FTCA action by a minor NJROTC cadet and her parents seeking damages for injuries sustained when she fell from an obstacle course at Camp Lejeune in 2007. The government asserted affirmative defenses including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine and a liability waiver signed by the minor and her mother. On plaintiffs' Rule 12(f) motion to strike, the court struck the Feres defense because the plaintiff had never been a member of the armed forces. The court denied the motion as to the waiver defense after analyzing its enforceability under North Carolina law, finding the clause clear, the activity voluntary and non-commercial, and the bargaining positions not so unequal as to render it invalid, while also rejecting the parents' separate argument that the waiver did not bind them.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Ezzat, a federal inmate charged with possessing prohibited objects (shanks) under 18 U.S.C. § 1791 moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that his prior nine-month placement in administrative detention constituted punishment for the same conduct. The magistrate judge, after an evidentiary hearing, found that the detention was administrative rather than disciplinary and recommended denial of the motion. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it in full, and denied the motion. The court reasoned that Congress intended prison administrative proceedings to be civil in nature, and application of the Hudson and Kennedy factors confirmed that the detention was not so punitive as to qualify as criminal punishment triggering double jeopardy protections.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves multiple defendants charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to commit violent acts abroad, firearms offenses, and false statements in naturalization applications. The defendants filed motions to suppress evidence derived from FISA-authorized electronic surveillance and physical searches, and to compel disclosure of the underlying FISA applications and orders. The court denied the motions in full. It reasoned that FISA provides a constitutional process for obtaining foreign intelligence information based on probable cause that targets are agents of a foreign power, that the applications in this case satisfied statutory requirements, and that neither suppression nor disclosure to the defense was warranted under the statute or Fourth Amendment precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a federal prosecution under the Clean Water Act for alleged discharge of pollutants into Browder’s Branch, turning on whether that water body qualifies as a “water of the United States.” The government moved for reconsideration of the court’s preliminary jury instruction, arguing that both the plurality and concurring standards from Rapanos v. United States should be presented as alternative bases for jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that it would instruct the jury solely under Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. The core reasoning was that, under Fourth Circuit precedent applying Marks v. United States, Kennedy’s concurring opinion supplies the narrower and therefore controlling ground for determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands and related waters.

criminal lawenvironmentfederal power

The case involved the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt an ongoing FTC administrative antitrust proceeding alleging that the Board improperly excluded non-dentists from offering teeth-whitening services. The district court granted the FTC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Board's collateral challenge to the administrative action was improper. The court reasoned that the FTC Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for such challenges in the courts of appeals after completion of the administrative process under 15 U.S.C. § 45, and that the Board could not bypass this framework by filing a separate federal lawsuit. The court also denied the State Boards' motion to file an amicus brief as unhelpful given the jurisdictional ruling.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract and negligence lawsuit filed by Stonecrest Partners against Bank of Hampton Roads (as successor to Gateway Bank) over an alleged failure to honor a loan commitment, with the bank counterclaiming on a defaulted promissory note and related guarantees. After the Rule 16(b) scheduling order deadline for amending pleadings had passed, the plaintiff and third-party defendants sought leave to file an amended complaint adding claims such as fraud, unfair trade practices, and others, citing new evidence and the death of their lead counsel. The magistrate judge denied the motion, finding no good cause under Rule 16(b) because the supporting evidence could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and the counsel's death occurred after the deadline. On appeal, the district court upheld the magistrate's order, confirming that the denial was a nondispositive matter within the magistrate's authority and that extensions of other deadlines did not establish law of the case for amending pleadings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this criminal case, defendant Nunez-Betancourt was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, illegal reentry as a previously deported alien, and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress physical and testimonial evidence obtained after local officers, acting on a tip, detained him at his residence, conducted a traffic stop, and held him pending verification of his immigration status by federal agents, leading to his consent to search the home. The court denied the motion to suppress, holding that the detention was a valid Terry investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion, that local officers may assist federal immigration enforcement without a formal 287(g) agreement under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10), and that Miranda warnings were not required because the defendant was not in custody. The court further concluded that the defendant's consent to the search was not tainted by any unlawful detention or questioning.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Regale, Inc., operator of an adult nightclub, and Dollhouse Productions N.C., Inc., along with Michael Peter, over a 1992 contract for management services and trademark licensing. Regale petitioned to vacate or modify an arbitration award, claiming the panel manifestly disregarded the law by finding a breach related to a 2007 asset sale and ongoing payments, while Dollhouse N.C. moved to confirm the award. The court denied Regale's petition and granted confirmation, holding that the award was not subject to vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act or common-law grounds because it drew its essence from the contract and did not ignore controlling law. The underlying contract disputes centered on whether the agreement was terminated in 1996 and the effects of the later sale of Regale's assets.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a resident of Cary, North Carolina, who painted a large protest sign on his house reading 'Screwed by the Town of Cary' after an ongoing dispute with the town over flooding caused by road improvements. The town attempted to enforce its sign ordinance against the display, prompting the resident to file a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his as-applied challenge and denied the town's cross-motion, holding that the ordinance constituted an invalid content-based restriction on speech. It reasoned that the ordinance's exceptions for certain signs, including those related to town-recognized events, demonstrated content discrimination that failed strict scrutiny. The court issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance against the plaintiff's sign.

free speechcivil rights

The case involves a North Carolina attorney suing Air Canada, a Canadian corporation, for breach of contract and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law, stemming from a 2006 agreement for legal services related to a strategic labor plan. Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The court denied the motion, finding that specific personal jurisdiction existed because the defendant initiated contact with the plaintiff in North Carolina, including the CEO traveling to the state for negotiations, ongoing communications directed there, and some contract performance occurring in the state, satisfying due process requirements despite the defendant's limited overall ties to North Carolina. General jurisdiction was not established due to the minimal nature of the defendant's other contacts, such as flights and website access.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved The Daniel Group suing Service Performance Group, Inc. for federal and common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and related state law claims over similar service marks used in the customer service consulting field. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on liability, determining that the defendant held priority rights based on continuous use of 'SERVICE PERFORMANCE GROUP' and related marks since 1992, including through a prior Illinois corporation and subsequent proprietorship whose interests were assigned to the current entity. The core reasoning focused on the timeline of use predating the plaintiff's 2008 federal registration, the absence of evidence supporting plaintiff's claims of infringement or confusion, and the validity of the defendant's rights under applicable law.

business & regulatory

In Preston v. Leake, a lobbyist for the ACLU of North Carolina challenged N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-278.13C(a), which bars registered lobbyists from contributing to candidates for the state legislature or Council of State, claiming the ban violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and association. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and instead entered judgment for the defendants, upholding the statute. The court reasoned that the prohibition addressed the perception of corruption arising from recent scandals, was not per se unconstitutional under precedents like Beaumont, and did not unduly burden lobbyists' rights given available alternative forms of political participation.

electionsfree speech

Evanston Insurance Company brought this declaratory judgment action against G & T Fabricators and Gary Speck seeking to rescind two general liability insurance policies and to declare that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants for claims arising from a 2008 chemical spill on Allied Terminals' property. Allied, which had intervened to protect its interest in potential recovery from the policies, opposed rescission and cross-moved for summary judgment on estoppel grounds. The court granted Evanston's motion and denied Allied's, holding that the policies were void ab initio because the applications contained material misrepresentations and omissions about G & T's work on storage tanks, including chemical exposure and structural alterations, which the insurers relied upon in issuing coverage under North Carolina law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Russ v. Causey, the widow and daughter of a deceased man sued the former sheriff and deputies of New Hanover County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law, alleging that officers improperly planned and carried out the arrest of the plaintiffs' son and brother at the decedent's funeral, causing emotional distress and violating privacy rights. The claims included deprivation of constitutional privacy, assault, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some claims failed as a matter of law due to insufficient evidence or immunity while others, particularly those involving intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence, presented triable issues regarding the officers' conduct and lack of immunity. The ruling was based on review of depositions, declarations, and undisputed facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, including the timing and manner of the arrest at the funeral.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This consolidated case involves a Jones Act personal injury claim by employee Rodney Collins against his employer Cottrell Contracting Corp. for negligence and unseaworthiness on the dredge Marion, together with the employer's separate action seeking to limit its liability. Plaintiffs moved to increase the limitation fund by adding the value of a dredging contract as pending freight, while defendant sought partial summary judgment on certain claims including loss of consortium. The court denied the motion to increase the fund, holding that the contract did not constitute pending freight under 46 U.S.C. § 30505, granted in part the summary judgment motion by ruling loss of consortium unavailable under the Jones Act but rejected other arguments as procedurally improper, and issued rulings granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions to limit or exclude expert testimony.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns claims by the United States and Oxford House, Inc., against the Town of Garner and its Board of Adjustment alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and Americans with Disabilities Act. The claims arise from the Town's enforcement of its zoning ordinance against a group home for individuals recovering from substance abuse, including the denial of a 'family' classification or reasonable accommodation and the lack of a process for such requests. Defendants moved to dismiss the reasonable accommodation claims as unripe and to bar claims based on a 2006 Board order under res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that unreviewed decisions of the Board acting in a judicial capacity may have preclusive effect in subsequent FHAA actions because that result is consistent with congressional intent and North Carolina preclusion law, while clarifying that certain related allegations remain viable.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Aytch's appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, which alleged disability due to leg and back pain along with other conditions such as diabetes. After the ALJ denied the claims following a hearing and the Appeals Council declined review, the district court considered cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the Commissioner's motion, and upheld the denial of benefits. It concluded that the ALJ's findings—including that the plaintiff's impairments did not meet a listed impairment and that he retained the residual functional capacity for sedentary work—were supported by substantial evidence from the medical record and testimony.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involved trade associations representing the oil and petrochemical industries challenging North Carolina's Ethanol Blending Statute, which regulates the sale and blending of ethanol into gasoline by suppliers and position holders. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the state law was facially preempted by federal statutes and violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the motions of the defendant state officials and intervenor-defendant trade association. The decision rested on stipulated facts showing no facial conflict with federal law, no excessive burden on commerce relative to local benefits, and no facial discrimination under the Commerce Clause, while noting that any as-applied claims would require further litigation.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

This case involves plaintiff Shoulars's application for Supplemental Security Income benefits alleging disability since 2004, which was denied by an Administrative Law Judge after a hearing. The ALJ found the claimant could perform light work, was literate with a limited education, and applied Grid Rule 202.11 to conclude he was not disabled. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, the magistrate judge recommended reversal, finding the ALJ misapplied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines by using the wrong Grid Rule due to an erroneous literacy determination and should have applied Rule 202.09 instead. The court adopted the recommendation, rejected the Commissioner's objection, reversed the denial of benefits, and remanded solely for calculation of benefits, holding that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's literacy and education findings or the resulting Grid application.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Wendell Anglin, an African-American employee terminated by defendant Progress Energy Service Company in November 2006, sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and North Carolina public policy, alleging race discrimination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Anglin was fired after an independent investigation by outside counsel substantiated multiple reports of inappropriate and lewd comments he made to employees of third-party vendors. The court granted the motion, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of unlawful discrimination and noting that the plaintiff's subjective beliefs alone could not create a genuine issue of material fact. The investigation process, which included interviews confirming specific incidents, led to the termination decision without evidence of pretext. The court applied the same standards to dismiss the state-law wrongful termination claim.

civil rightslabor & employment