Beverly Baldwin Martin

The case involved the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action against a house at 4323 Bellwood Circle, which was purchased with funds from a bank account into which the claimant made repeated cash deposits under $10,000 to avoid triggering currency transaction reports required by 31 U.S.C. § 5313. The complaint alleged that these structured transactions violated 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and that the property was traceable to the violation under 31 U.S.C. § 5317, seeking forfeiture after the IRS seized the account and the claimant used the money to buy the house. The claimant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Supplemental Rules for forfeiture actions. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint provided sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government could prove the property was traceable to the structuring offense, consistent with the statute's language and case law allowing forfeiture of real property acquired with such funds.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved a borrower who alleged that First Tennessee Bank charged unauthorized settlement and attorney fees on a VA Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loan by bundling them into a title examination fee and falsely certifying compliance with federal regulations on the HUD-1 form. The plaintiff brought class claims under Georgia RICO and federal RICO statutes, asserting that the bank's pattern of conduct constituted mail and wire fraud. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss, holding that a private RICO action could not be used to enforce VA lending regulations when Congress had provided no private right of action and had delegated enforcement exclusively to a federal agency. The decision rested on the principle that violations of such regulations, even if concealed, cannot serve as predicate acts for civil RICO liability.

business & regulatorycriminal law

In Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., plaintiffs Sharon and George Anderson sued Dunbar Armored and several individual defendants alleging pregnancy and gender discrimination under Title VII, racial harassment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and various Georgia state-law claims including negligent hiring, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after finding no clear error, granted the defendants' converted motions for summary judgment on all claims, struck the second amended complaint, and dismissed the claims against one unserved defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on any element of their claims, such as severe or pervasive harassment or a materially adverse action linked to protected activity, and that § 1981 does not cover gender-based claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Lesa Aque, a former Home Depot employee with multiple sclerosis, who alleged that she was discriminated against based on her race and disability, and retaliated against for testifying in a colleague's discrimination lawsuit against the company. Aque brought claims under various federal statutes including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986; Title VII; the ADA; the ADEA; and the FMLA against Home Depot and two HR employees. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and for partial judgment on the pleadings while denying Aque's motion to amend her complaint. The decision was based on a de novo review of the objections and analysis of the legal sufficiency of the claims, including issues related to conspiracy claims under section 1985.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where plaintiff Brenda Edwards alleged that defendant Niagara Credit Solutions, a debt collector, violated the Act by leaving answering machine messages that failed to identify the caller as Niagara or disclose that the calls were for debt collection purposes. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding the maximum statutory damages of $1,000. The core reasoning was that the messages constituted communications under the FDCPA, the intentional company policy of not making required disclosures violated sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11), and the bona fide error defense was unavailable because the violations were deliberate rather than unintentional mistakes.

business & regulatory

In White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., plaintiffs Casey and Emily White brought a putative class action alleging that Wachovia manipulated the posting order of transactions to their checking account—often largest to smallest and days after receipt—to impose overdraft fees even when the account had sufficient funds, in violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the implied duty of good faith in the Deposit Agreement, and state claims for unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Wachovia removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing preemption by federal banking regulations and that its practices were authorized by the agreement and Georgia law. The court denied dismissal on preemption grounds, finding the claims plausible on the facts alleged because the bank's policy lacked time limits present in OCC-approved practices and did not clearly authorize fees when funds were available.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerns The Lamar Company’s challenge to the City of Marietta’s denial of a permit to install an LED display on an existing sign, along with broader constitutional challenges to the City’s sign permitting scheme under the First Amendment and due process protections. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment and related evidentiary motions. It determined that the Sign Code’s lack of any time limits for deciding permit applications rendered it an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, leading to invalidation of the entire scheme. Lamar’s claimed property interest in permit approval under the Code therefore no longer existed, and remaining damages claims overlapped with the First Amendment violation. The opinion resolves various procedural objections and Daubert issues while directing the parties on next steps for trial.

free speechpropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a subcontractor, McKenney’s, Inc., that performed work on a federal construction project for the CDC under a contract with general contractor Government Technical Services, LLC (GTS). After GTS failed to pay $66,950 for the completed work, McKenney’s sued GTS and its surety, The Gray Insurance Company, under the Miller Act, which mandates payment bonds on government contracts to protect subcontractors. The court granted McKenney’s motion for summary judgment against Gray Insurance, holding it liable on the bond for the principal amount plus $12,051 in prejudgment interest, and entered default against GTS. The reasoning was that McKenney’s satisfied all Miller Act requirements, including timely notice and filing, and a contractual pay-when-paid clause could not override the subcontractor’s federal rights under the Act since no valid waiver occurred. The court also awarded interest under Georgia law on the undisputed liquidated claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case United States v. Reynolds concerned motions by defendants Dennis McCord and Willie Reynolds, Jr. to suppress evidence and statements gathered after Fulton County deputies entered a residence at 4:49 a.m. to execute an arrest warrant for a third party, Quentin Miles, on a misdemeanor traffic violation. Deputies obtained consent to enter from McCord, moved both occupants to the living room where they observed a rifle magazine, scale, and holster, and conducted further investigation including a protective sweep, leading to discovery of additional items and subsequent statements by the defendants. The court evaluated whether the entry, relocation of occupants, observations, and any sweep complied with Fourth Amendment standards for consent, officer safety, and reasonable suspicion, drawing on testimony about the warrant details, lack of further address verification, and the smell of marijuana.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Jordanian citizen and longtime U.S. permanent resident whose second naturalization application, filed in 2005, remained stalled in the background-check stage more than a year later with no interview scheduled. The plaintiff sued USCIS and related agencies seeking a writ of mandamus to compel processing of his application. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the INA, APA, and mandamus statute did not confer jurisdiction because no final agency action had occurred and the plaintiff had not shown a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act.

immigrationprocedure

In Black v. Equinox Financial Management Solutions, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that Equinox made false representations about investigating an erroneous credit report entry for a debt actually owed by his son. After the court dismissed most claims but allowed one to proceed, and following the plaintiff's rejection of settlement offers, the defendant moved for attorney fees and costs. The court granted the motion in part, awarding fees and costs incurred after a certain date, reasoning that the plaintiff pursued the claim in bad faith by maintaining allegations of deception without sufficient evidence after investigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Todd Harris's claims against Aetna Life Insurance Company for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, based on his HIV diagnosis and major depression that allegedly prevented him from performing his job as an Associate Partner at Accenture. The court denied Aetna's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the insurer for reconsideration of the benefits claim. The core reasoning was that Aetna violated ERISA's full and fair review requirements by relying on new reports from medical examiners without providing Harris an opportunity to respond or submit rebuttal evidence.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This ERISA case involved pro se plaintiff Mary J. O'Neal suing two employee benefit funds and a trustee after they denied her claims for proceeds from a deceased participant's life insurance policy and pension fund, which she asserted should pass to her as sole heir to the estate. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that ERISA completely preempts any state-law claims and confers federal jurisdiction. It granted the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding that the health and welfare fund reasonably interpreted and applied the policy's beneficiary provisions under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the pension fund. The court also denied the motion for a protective order as moot in light of the dispositive rulings.

labor & employmentprocedure

Kate Aspen, Inc. sued Fashioncraft-Excello, Inc. for copyright infringement and unfair competition, claiming that Fashioncraft sold copies of Kate Aspen's copyrighted wedding favor designs, specifically the Wedding Bell Tag, Wedding Cake Candle, and Rose Ball Candle. Kate Aspen sought a temporary restraining order to halt the alleged infringement shortly after filing its complaint. The court denied the motion for a TRO, concluding that Kate Aspen failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the candle designs lacked the originality needed for valid copyright protection, as similar products had been available in the wedding favors market prior to Kate Aspen's creation of its designs. The court noted that Kate Aspen's principals had prior experience in the industry and that the low threshold for originality was not met based on the record of preexisting items.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Alliance Services, Inc., a company that accumulated over $3.6 million in unpaid federal employment taxes and related penalties after suffering business losses. Alliance requested a collection due process hearing and submitted an offer-in-compromise of $250,000 to settle the liability, but the IRS rejected it after determining that Alliance and its principal could reasonably pay at least $700,000, based on evaluations of assets, income, expenses, and a potential loan from an asset sale; the IRS then upheld its plan to collect by levy. Alliance challenged that determination in district court through cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing that changed circumstances such as job loss and divorce should have led to a lower acceptable offer amount. The court analyzed whether the IRS settlement officer properly applied Internal Revenue Code provisions and manual guidelines in assessing collectibility and the taxpayer's financial situation, including treatment of future income and loan rights.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Toni Perry suing Unum Life Insurance Company and its parent UnumProvident Corporation for the alleged wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits under a policy issued to her employer, the Atlanta Board of Education, after her multiple sclerosis and diabetes worsened. Perry brought claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, punitive damages, joint venture/alter ego liability, and attorney fees. UnumProvident moved to dismiss, arguing it was not a party to the policy and could not be held liable under Georgia law. The court granted the motion, ruling that breach of contract requires privity and that Perry failed to allege facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil or show that the parent was a stranger to the subsidiary's contract, and dismissed UnumProvident along with several counts against Unum Life.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This ERISA case involves plaintiff Eileen Hamall-Desai's claims against Fortis Benefits Insurance Company for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan, along with related claims for failure to disclose documents, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with benefits. The plaintiff, who had a history of neck injury and chronic pain, worked in a sedentary MIS management role until her condition allegedly prevented full-time work; she applied for benefits in 1999, but Fortis denied the claim after reviewing medical evidence and independent reports. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court reviewed the administrative record and determined that Fortis's eligibility decision was both wrong and unreasonable under the plan's occupation test and discretionary authority provisions. The court also found Fortis liable for statutory penalties due to untimely disclosure of certain documents and addressed ancillary motions concerning confidentiality and attorney withdrawal.

labor & employment

The case involves the United States and an intervening plaintiff alleging that a property management company, its client, and an on-site manager violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination against African-American prospective tenants at an apartment complex, based on evidence from an individual inquiry and government-conducted tester visits showing differential treatment by race. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the evidence did not establish such a pattern or practice. The court denied the motions, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed about the availability of units and the consistency of the defendants' responses to inquiries, which must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

civil rights

The case involved Timothy Amick, a legally blind individual, who was denied lodging at a Days Inn operated by BM & KM, Inc. because of the motel's policy against pets, despite his use of a service dog. Amick sued for disability discrimination under the ADA and Georgia statutes, plus intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought to amend his complaint to add claims under Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1-6 and negligence per se for violations of state innkeeper and service animal laws. The court granted the motion to amend, holding that the proposed amendments were not futile as Georgia law permits recovery of damages for violations of statutes without explicit civil remedies through § 51-1-6 and negligence per se principles.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns Lamar Advertising Company's facial challenge to the City of Douglasville's sign ordinance, which required permits for most signs and was alleged to impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on commercial and noncommercial speech by granting city officials unbridled discretion in approvals and fee-setting. Lamar had applied for permits to erect signs but was denied, prompting motions for summary judgment and injunctive relief from both parties. After the city amended the ordinance during litigation, the court examined provisions related to temporary signs, election periods, and application fees, determining that certain sections lacked adequate standards and thus violated the First Amendment while finding others, such as limits on informational signs, to be content-neutral and permissible.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights