Clay D. Land

This case involves a dispute between Denim North America Holdings, LLC and Swift Textiles, LLC along with related entities over a joint venture to manufacture and sell denim products, with Holdings alleging that defendants fraudulently induced it into the venture and breached fiduciary duties. Defendants moved for dismissal or an adverse inference based on spoliation of emails, to strike an affidavit, and for summary judgment on the claims. The court denied the spoliation sanctions and motion to strike, finding no bad faith in the routine deletion of emails and that the affidavit was admissible, then granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, concluding that genuine factual disputes existed on claims involving sales projections and competition but not on claims regarding concealment of financial condition or certain foreign ventures.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Mary Lee Salser, a speech language pathologist employed by the Clarke County School District who has rheumatoid arthritis, sued the School District and its employees, claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court had previously granted partial summary judgment dismissing some ADA claims based on events before October 2007. On the remaining claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Salser and concluded that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both the ADA and FMLA claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, former TSYS employees Ginger Hooper and Larry Marshall sued their employer for alleged discrimination, with Hooper claiming gender-based pay disparities, termination, and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, and Marshall alleging race-based pay issues, denial of promotions, termination, and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981. Plaintiffs supported their claims with comparator evidence and expert statistical testimony from Dr. Michael Daniels, which the court addressed alongside TSYS's motions. The court granted TSYS's motion to strike Daniels's testimony, finding it unreliable and not probative because his analysis failed to account for key factors like job responsibilities, performance, division, and salary history that TSYS used in its compensation and termination decisions. On summary judgment, the court denied the motion as to Hooper's Equal Pay Act and Title VII wage discrimination claims and Marshall's discriminatory discharge claims but granted it as to all other claims due to lack of sufficient evidence of discrimination or legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions.

civil rightslabor & employment

This qui tam case under the False Claims Act involved relators alleging that University of Georgia researchers and EPA employees submitted a false 1999 grant application to the EPA for a study on sewage sludge application to land, using the funds to produce fabricated scientific data. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After discovery, the court found that the relators' claims relied on information obtained through public records requests and other publicly available sources, which triggered the FCA's public disclosure bar. The court further determined that the relators were not original sources of the information, depriving the court of jurisdiction and requiring dismissal of the action.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal involving disputes between former dental partners James Winchester and E. Murray Newlin over partnership interests, duties under their agreement, and post-petition proceeds, all complicated by Newlin's Chapter 11 conversion to Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After Newlin sued Winchester in state court, the bankruptcy trustee intervened, the case was removed to bankruptcy court, Winchester's answer and counterclaim were deemed untimely resulting in default, the trustee's counterclaim was assigned to Winchester, and the bankruptcy court found the proceeding non-core before remanding to state court. Winchester appealed the default, remand, and jury demand rulings, while Newlin appealed the assignment to Winchester. The district court, reviewing the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, affirmed all of the bankruptcy court's rulings on procedural timeliness, substitution of parties, and remand.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action concerning the amount of liability insurance available under a State Auto policy after an insured driver struck two bicyclists riding in close spatial and temporal proximity. State Auto argued the incident was one accident subject to a single per-accident limit, while the defendants contended there were two separate accidents allowing for two limits; the policy left the term "accident" undefined. Following certification, the Georgia Supreme Court adopted the cause theory for determining the number of accidents, focusing on whether there was one proximate cause or an intervening cause after the driver regained control. Reviewing evidence that the driver may have made a steering correction between the impacts separated by roughly one second, the court found genuine issues of material fact on that issue. The court therefore denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This multidistrict litigation involves product liability claims by Georgia plaintiffs implanted with Mentor’s ObTape suburethral sling to treat stress urinary incontinence, alleging that design and manufacturing defects in the device caused complications including infection and erosion, along with failure to adequately warn physicians and related warranty claims. The court evaluated Mentor’s motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and for summary judgment on the various claims. It denied exclusion of most expert opinions, finding them sufficiently reliable to create genuine issues of material fact on design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and causation, and denied summary judgment on those claims while viewing evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. The court granted summary judgment to Mentor on the implied warranty claims, determining they failed as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves parents of a child with autism appealing two administrative law judge decisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act against a school district. The parents challenged rulings that their withholding of consent for reevaluation relieved the district of providing services and denied their request for an independent educational evaluation, while also bringing claims under the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983. The court decided that the parents' actions did not fully absolve the district but they cannot control the reevaluation terms, ordering a reevaluation under court guidelines, affirmed the denial of the independent evaluation, and dismissed the non-IDEA claims due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The reasoning centered on interpreting IDEA provisions regarding consent for reevaluations and the requirement to pursue IDEA claims first before federal non-IDEA suits.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the termination of long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan governed by ERISA. Plaintiff Alan Adams, who had suffered multiple strokes leading to symptoms like double vision and cognitive impairments that affected his ability to perform his job as a systems software analyst, challenged the denial by Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company. The court, reviewing the administrative record, concluded that the denial was arbitrary and capricious because the insurer failed to adequately consider the medical evidence supporting the plaintiff's ongoing disability. As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involves allegations that a general manager at a Sonic Drive-In restaurant sexually harassed an employee over several months through unwanted physical contact, sexual comments, and derogatory nicknames, creating a hostile work environment that led to her constructive discharge. The EEOC and the employee sued the restaurant's operating companies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims for hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and punitive damages. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the alleged conduct occurred, whether the employers can establish an affirmative defense, and whether punitive damages are warranted.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved attorney Orly Taitz filing an action on behalf of an Army reservist seeking to block deployment orders based on claims that President Obama was ineligible to serve as Commander in Chief due to his birthplace. The court imposed a $20,000 monetary sanction on Taitz payable to the United States for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The core reasoning was that lawyers abuse their privilege to practice when they file baseless complaints unsupported by existing law, pursue political agendas through litigation unrelated to legitimate causes of action, and make unsupported attacks on the judiciary, thereby failing to advance justice as officers of the court.

procedureelectionsfederal power

This case involves a dispute between AFLAC, an insurance company, and Intervoice, a seller of an automated voice response system, arising from a 2001 purchase agreement that included an indemnity clause requiring Intervoice to defend AFLAC against patent infringement claims related to the system. After receiving letters from Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing alleging infringement by AFLAC's system, AFLAC notified Intervoice and requested defense and indemnification, which Intervoice declined, leading AFLAC to sue for breach of contract and fraud based on alleged intent not to honor the indemnity. The court denied Intervoice's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, finding that the letters constituted a sufficient "claim" under the contract to create standing and that the fraud allegations were adequately pled under Georgia law as an alternative to the contract claim. The decision rested on the contract's plain language regarding indemnification triggers, the absence of any requirement for a final judgment before suit, and Georgia precedents allowing concurrent tort and contract claims without immediate election of remedies.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Marion County, Georgia zoning ordinance regulating outdoor recreation camps, including requirements for setbacks, screening, trash removal, access for officials, and annual permit fees, asserting violations of federal due process (vagueness), equal protection, and the Takings Clause, as well as related state claims. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding the ordinance constitutional on its face. It reasoned that the ordinance's terms were sufficiently clear to provide notice and avoid arbitrary enforcement, that distinctions in the rules had a rational basis tied to legitimate interests like public safety and aesthetics, and that the regulations did not deprive owners of all economically viable use of their land. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Fannie Mae Seldon, a Black female former employee of Total System Services, Inc. (TSYS), sued the company and several of its employees alleging federal claims of race and gender discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and unequal pay and promotion practices under Title VII, § 1981, and the Equal Pay Act. The claims centered on issues such as reprimands, failure to promote, schedule accommodations, and alleged disparate treatment following her complaints about pay and advancement inequities. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no genuine issue of material fact. It reasoned that Seldon failed to establish a prima facie case for any claim, that many of her internal complaints did not constitute protected activity, and that there was insufficient evidence linking any adverse actions to unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from an alleged strip search of high school student Maci King by school officials after an iPod went missing during class, prompting her mother to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment violation along with related state-law tort claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying the summary-judgment standard under Rule 56 and analyzing whether the search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law under precedents such as Thomas v. Clayton County. The court concluded that Eleventh Circuit precedent sufficiently established that the type of search alleged here violated a student's constitutional rights, while noting that the plaintiff had not responded to certain arguments regarding the school district's liability.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs who experienced complications after surgical implantation of ObTape, a medical device sold by Mentor Corporation to treat stress urinary incontinence. The pending motion asked the court to compel production of French documents obtained via the Hague Convention that the defendant had listed on its privilege log, including redactions of reporting physicians' names and other documents claimed as attorney-client privileged. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It held that FDA regulations protect the identities of voluntary adverse-event reporters (including foreign physicians) even when the information appears in internal company files rather than formal submissions to the agency, while requiring production of documents not qualifying for attorney-client protection after in-camera review.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the United States seeking to set aside transfers of property by Marion Sherrill to his wife Dorthea under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, following a civil judgment and criminal restitution order against Marion for securities violations and related crimes. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after a bench trial, finding the transfers to be fraudulent. The reasoning centered on Marion making the transfers while insolvent, without receiving equivalent value, shortly after learning of the SEC investigation, which demonstrated intent to hinder creditors or constructive fraud under the statute.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves breach of contract claims by GE entities against defendants for defaults on loans secured by auto dealership properties and a Learjet, with unconditional guaranties by the individual defendant. The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants' jury trial demands based on contractual waivers in the loan documents. The court granted the motions as to the Florida-governed claim but denied them as to the Georgia-governed claims. It applied the Erie doctrine and Georgia's lex loci contractus rule to hold that Georgia law, which invalidates pre-litigation jury waivers, governs the validity of those provisions in the Georgia contracts and renders them unenforceable in federal court, while the Florida waiver was upheld under federal standards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Tommy Scott, who was convicted in Georgia state court of malice murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and firearm possession and sentenced to life in prison plus additional terms. Scott claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to hearsay testimony from a witness about a co-defendant's statement that implicated Scott as one of the triggermen, raising a Bruton confrontation clause issue. The Eleventh Circuit had previously ruled that counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland and remanded for analysis of prejudice; the district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no objections were filed, reviewed the full trial record and determined there was a reasonable probability the inadmissible evidence affected the verdict given the lack of overwhelming other evidence of guilt. The court therefore granted the petition and ordered a new trial. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Georgia ambulance service provider challenging the federal government's failure to apply a new Medicare national fee schedule for ambulance services to claims for services rendered between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2002. The plaintiff sought summary judgment requiring reimbursement under the fee schedule adopted in April 2002 rather than the prior reasonable charge methodology. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to retroactive application of the fee schedule. The reasoning centered on statutory ambiguity in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 regarding timing and retroactivity, combined with Chevron deference to the agency's reasonable interpretation that budget neutrality requirements, Y2K-related delays, and lack of expressed intent precluded retroactive implementation.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory