Raymond Alvin Jackson

In this patent infringement case, ActiveVideo Networks sued Verizon Communications for infringing four of its patents through Verizon's Video On Demand services offered via its FiOS system. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding Verizon liable on all asserted patents and awarding ActiveVideo $115 million in damages. ActiveVideo then moved for a permanent injunction to bar Verizon's continued use of two of the patents. Applying the four-factor equitable test from eBay v. MercExchange, the court found that ActiveVideo suffered irreparable harm including loss of market share and goodwill not adequately compensable by money damages, that the balance of hardships favored injunctive relief, and that the public interest would not be disserved, leading the court to grant the permanent injunction with provisions for a sunset period allowing Verizon time to implement alternatives.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns Justin Wolfe's federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Virginia state convictions for capital murder (murder-for-hire), firearm use, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana, which resulted in a death sentence. The district court had previously granted the petition, finding due process violations under Brady v. Maryland, improper use of false testimony under Giglio v. United States, and a denial of an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment, and ordered the convictions vacated. The state respondent moved for a temporary stay of that judgment pending appeal, while Wolfe moved for release pending appeal. Applying the factors from Hilton v. Braunskill, the court granted the stay of the judgment vacating the convictions during the appeal but granted partial relief by ordering Wolfe transferred back to death row with restored prior conditions of confinement, denying unconditional release.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns Evanston Insurance Company's declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Harbor Walk Development under three commercial general liability policies in connection with three underlying lawsuits by homeowners alleging property damage and bodily injury from noxious gases emitted by Chinese drywall installed in their homes. The policies provide coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence but contain pollution exclusions barring coverage for injury or damage arising from the discharge or release of pollutants, defined to include irritants, contaminants, fumes, and chemicals. The court granted summary judgment to Evanston, holding that the exclusions apply because the drywall emissions constitute pollutants and that the underlying claims fall squarely within the policy language excluding such harms.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityproperty

This case involves Justin Michael Wolfe's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 Virginia convictions for capital murder-for-hire, firearm use, and marijuana conspiracy, for which he received a death sentence. Wolfe alleged due process violations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States due to the prosecution's suppression of exculpatory evidence and knowing use of false testimony from key witness Owen Barber, along with a claim that the trial court improperly struck a qualified juror. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the suppressed evidence and perjured testimony were material to guilt or punishment and that the Commonwealth failed to disclose favorable information as required. The court granted Wolfe's petition for habeas relief, vacated his convictions, and ordered his release unless the state elects to retry him within a specified period, while denying relief on the juror claim.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is a patent infringement action in which Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and its licensees sued BioPet Vet Lab and PetSafe, alleging that the defendants' DNA breed identification kits infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,729,863. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 to halt the defendants' sales and marketing of the products. After a hearing and review of evidence on validity challenges, the court granted the injunction. It applied the four-factor Winter test, found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits given the patent's presumption of validity and insufficient showing of anticipation by prior art, and concluded that irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest supported relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Curly Hill's action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff argued that the administrative law judge failed to adequately consider his testimony about lack of medical treatment during incarceration. After conducting a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding of no medical signs or laboratory findings establishing a medically determinable impairment prior to the date last insured. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's motion, and affirmed the Commissioner's final decision.

healthcarefederal power

The case involves a homeowner who refinanced his primary residence and later sought to rescind the loan under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) due to alleged improper disclosures by the original lender, including an undisclosed notary fee in the finance charge, missing rescission deadline, and absent payment schedule. After the loan was assigned to Bank of America, which initiated foreclosure, the plaintiff sued the bank for declaratory judgment and attorney's fees. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing claims based on the finance charge and payment schedule because those violations were not apparent on the face of the assigned documents, but denied dismissal for the claim regarding inadequate notice of the right to rescind, as that defect would be apparent on the face of the documents, allowing the claim against the assignee to proceed. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend one paragraph of the complaint.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Hood v. Suffolk City School Board, a teacher sued the school board and an official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by deliberately exposing her to known mold and bacteria hazards in the school building, causing her personal injury. The district court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that the claim did not allege a cognizable violation of a liberty interest in bodily integrity, as the facts concerned workplace conditions rather than direct physical abuse and therefore fell under precedent establishing that state employers have no constitutional duty to provide a safe work environment.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) between the School Board of the City of Norfolk and the parent of an eleven-year-old student with cerebral palsy and seizure disorder who qualified for special education services. The student was suspended after leaving threatening voicemails, leading to manifestation determination reviews that found his conduct unrelated to his disability, followed by a placement in an alternative program; the parent challenged these actions and sought relief through a due process hearing, which the school board then appealed. The district court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, denying in part and granting in part each motion while affirming in part and reversing in part the hearing officer's decision. It found procedural violations of the IDEA's child find requirements and in the manifestation determination reviews, along with a substantive violation regarding the change in placement, but no substantive violation in one of the reviews, and it upheld the officer's order for counseling services as supported by evidence. The court concluded that the school board had failed to provide a free appropriate public education in certain respects due to inadequate attention to the student's emerging behavioral issues.

civil rightsprocedure

In Carrington v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the plaintiff sued the defendant bank under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) after refinancing her home, alleging that the original lender failed to properly disclose the finance charge by excluding title insurance costs and failed to clearly disclose her right to rescind the transaction; she sought rescission of the loan assigned to HSBC and related damages while facing foreclosure. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the claim based on under-disclosure of the finance charge for failure to state a valid TILA violation, but granted leave to amend. It denied the motion in part, allowing the rescission claim against the assignee to proceed because the plaintiff adequately alleged both the ability to tender the required funds and that the notice of rescission was properly sent, rendering her claims plausible under the pleading standards of Rule 12(b)(6).

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved defendants charged with piracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1651 after allegedly approaching the USS Ashland in a small skiff in the Gulf of Aden and firing a weapon at the ship without boarding it or taking any property. The court granted the defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss Count One of the superseding indictment. The core reasoning was that the statute incorporates the international law definition of piracy, which requires robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, and the alleged conduct of an armed assault alone did not meet that standard under historical precedents and customary international law.

criminal lawfederal power

This case concerns post-conviction motions in a federal capital resentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 848 for defendant Richard Thomas Stitt, following relief granted in a prior § 2255 proceeding. The government moved to reconsider an order striking its second amended notice of intent to seek the death penalty, seeking to introduce new evidence and victim impact statements, while the defendant moved to strike multiple aggravating factors from the first amended notice. The court denied in part and granted in part both motions, striking factors such as 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 23, 25, 32, 35, and 49 for insufficient basis or other deficiencies, combining duplicative factors like future dangerousness claims into single factors, and permitting limited amendments, all while clarifying that evidentiary limits stem from resentencing rules rather than § 2255 equitable powers and applying standards of notice, relevance, and reliability.

criminal lawprocedure

In Robbins v. Friedman Agency, Inc., a former insurance agent sued his employer alleging that termination without payment of benefits under a 2008 employment agreement violated ERISA section 1140. The agreement's paragraph 3(c) promised monthly installments equal to one times the annual renewal stream upon retirement after age 60, total disability, or death, provided the employee had at least five years of service. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending the provision was not an ERISA-governed employee pension plan. The court denied the motion, concluding the agreement constituted such a plan because it supplied retirement income and satisfied the Donovan test by allowing a reasonable person to identify intended benefits, beneficiaries, financing source, and payout procedures.

labor & employmentfederal power

In this maritime tort case, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers vessel collided with the plaintiffs' yacht Marquessa while it was docked, and the only disputed issue at the bench trial was the amount of damages. The court determined that the yacht was a constructive total loss because the estimated repair costs exceeded its pre-collision fair market value. Applying maritime law principles, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled only to the vessel's value at the time of the collision rather than repair costs or lost profits, relying on expert testimony to set that value at $440,000 and entering judgment for the plaintiffs in that amount.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a widow's claims for breach of contract and related counts against multiple corporate defendants as successors in interest to her late husband's employer, seeking continued annual payments under a Deferred Compensation Agreement after the company stopped paying following his 1999 death. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the husband had not met the conditions precedent in the agreements. The court granted the motion, holding that the contract language was unambiguous and required the employee to have retired and terminated employment before any death benefits became due, which had not occurred here since he died while still employed. The court reasoned that Virginia law requires giving effect to the plain terms of the contract without adding or altering provisions, and that gratuitous payments made for several years did not create ongoing liability.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Paul Sutton, a former Chesapeake police lieutenant and Coast Guard reservist, suing the City of Chesapeake for denying his request for reemployment after nearly seven years of active military service. Sutton had retired from the police department in 2001 upon receiving active duty orders and later sought reinstatement under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), but the city determined he was ineligible. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the case, holding that Sutton's retirement represented a bona fide and permanent severance of his civilian employment, rendering USERRA's reemployment rights inapplicable. Alternatively, the court found that Sutton's period of military service exceeded USERRA's five-year limit, providing an additional basis for denying reemployment.

labor & employmentfederal power

In this admiralty case, plaintiff Justin Gauthreaux, a longshoreman working aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, sued the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act and Public Vessels Act after a Navy-operated forklift ran over his foot, resulting in amputation; he alleged negligence by the shipowner in failing to use adequate spotters and safeties during forklift operations. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendant. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the United States breached any duty of care, as the evidence showed the forklift operators were trained and used reasonable procedures, the plaintiff had lost awareness of the forklift's location and moved into its path, and a shipowner owes no duty to anticipate the carelessness of a longshoreman.

torts & liability

This case arose from an incident in which plaintiff Justin Gauthreaux, a civilian worker aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, suffered a severe foot injury from a twenty-ton forklift operated by Navy personnel, leading to amputation of his leg. He filed consolidated admiralty claims against the United States for crew negligence under the Suits in Admiralty Act and Public Vessels Act, and against manufacturer Wiggins Lift Co. for product liability, negligence, and failure to warn regarding the forklift's design and warnings. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted Wiggins' motion, dismissing the claims against the manufacturer. The core reasoning was that Wiggins satisfied all three elements of the government contractor defense under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., because it followed the Navy's reasonably precise specifications, the equipment conformed to those specifications as shown by testing and long-term use, and no undisclosed known dangers existed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Shopntown, LLC's patent infringement claims against Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,968,513 for an on-line business referral system. The court construed multiple terms from Claim 21 and its dependent claims, determining that each is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and specifying the corresponding functions and structures, such as a server programmed for specific tasks like monitoring usage or limiting access. The constructions were based on the patent's language, prior art issues with search engines, and the parties' supplemental briefs following a Markman hearing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in a Chapter 7 proceeding involving a law firm debtor. The trustee sought to recover pre-bankruptcy payments made to the firm's former sole owner, J. Ridgely Porter III, under federal bankruptcy preference rules for insiders and Virginia's voluntary conveyance statute, claiming lack of consideration. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to Porter and denial of the trustee's motion to amend the complaint. It held that the notice of appeal, though defective, did not warrant dismissal due to lack of prejudice, that the amendment motion was untimely, and that the transaction involved valid consideration because Porter forwent his right to liquidate the firm and allowed it to continue operations with its assets and staff. The court therefore concluded the trustee could not prevail on either claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure