Norman K. Moon

The case concerned a bankruptcy debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to enter or enforce a consent order on sanctions for alleged violations of the automatic stay by a creditor. The debtor claimed the creditor violated the stay through online disparaging comments and misappropriation of copyright and trademark rights related to her book. The district court affirmed the ruling, concluding that the motion did not arise under the Bankruptcy Code for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) because the allegations did not establish a willful violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) that would support sanctions under § 362(k). The core reasoning was that bankruptcy courts have limited jurisdiction, parties cannot consent to it, and expansive interpretations of stay violations involving intangible property rights would improperly broaden the court's authority, consistent with precedents like Inslaw.

federal powerprocedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the University of Virginia Patent Foundation against General Electric Company over U.S. Patent No. 5,245,282, which covers a method for three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging using a specific pulse sequence. During the litigation, the Patent Foundation canceled a dependent claim and made arguments during ex parte reexamination that narrowed the scope of the independent claim by requiring a finite magnetization recovery period, leading to the issuance of a reexamination certificate. GE sought summary judgment establishing intervening rights that would bar liability for any infringement occurring before the reexamination certificate issued, while the Patent Foundation moved to certify prior rulings on claim scope and intervening rights for interlocutory appeal. The court denied both motions, finding that GE had not presented sufficient evidence of good-faith reliance on the original patent's scope or invalidity to support either absolute or equitable intervening rights, and that the rulings did not meet the criteria for immediate appellate review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract dispute in which ProTherapy Associates sought liquidated damages from nine nursing facilities and their operator after the facilities allegedly violated non-solicitation clauses in therapy services agreements by indirectly hiring 57 former ProTherapy employees through a replacement provider. The court had previously sent the compensatory damages claim to arbitration, leaving only the liquidated damages issue for resolution. Applying Florida law due to a forum selection clause, the court granted summary judgment on liability to ProTherapy against the nine facilities, determining that the restrictive covenants were reasonable and enforceable and that the liquidated damages provision was valid, but ruled that the operator Kissito could not be held liable because it was not a party to the contracts. The court withheld entry of an award pending further briefing on the appropriateness of joint and several liability.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the University of Virginia Patent Foundation against General Electric, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,245,282 on a method for producing three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging using a specific pulse sequence cycle. After GE requested ex parte reexamination of the patent at the PTO, the Patent Foundation canceled a dependent claim and made arguments distinguishing the independent claim based on a non-zero magnetization recovery period, leading the PTO to confirm the patent. The court had granted partial summary judgment to GE and now denies the Patent Foundation's motion for reconsideration. The core reasoning is that the patent owner's statements during reexamination constitute prosecution history that limits claim scope and precludes interpretations disclaimed to overcome prior art references such as the '658 and '301 patents.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute over underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under an auto insurance policy issued by Travelers to the Trigo family. Following a 2008 car accident in which minor Tomas Trigo suffered serious injuries, the at-fault driver's $50,000 liability limit proved insufficient, and the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the policy's $100,000 UIM limit per vehicle could be stacked to provide $200,000 total coverage because separate premiums were paid for two cars. The court granted summary judgment to Travelers and denied the plaintiffs' motion, holding that the policy's limit-of-liability provision unambiguously capped recovery at $100,000 regardless of the number of insured vehicles or premiums paid. The court found no ambiguity arising from the declarations page or the UIM endorsement and applied Virginia precedent permitting clear anti-stacking language in such policies.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Liberty University and several individuals sued federal officials, challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual and employer mandates requiring minimum essential health coverage or payment of penalties, along with related religious exemptions and potential funding of abortion services. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court found the claims unripe because the provisions do not take effect until 2014, plaintiffs lacked standing on certain issues, and the mandates were within Congress's taxing and commerce powers without violating religious liberty or free association rights under the exemptions provided. The opinion addressed but rejected novel characterizations of the claims as involving compelled speech or association.

healthcarefederal powerreligious libertytaxes

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the University of Virginia Patent Foundation against General Electric Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,245,282, which covers a method for three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. The court addressed claim construction disputes between the parties and a motion for partial summary judgment on whether GE could be held liable for alleged infringement occurring before the patent's reexamination certificate was issued. The court granted GE's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the company is not liable for any infringing activities prior to the reexamination certificate. The ruling rests on 35 U.S.C. § 252, which provides that amended claims during reexamination do not give rise to liability for acts before the certificate issues.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a slate mining company suing Virginia state mine inspectors and supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related constitutional and state law provisions, alleging that repeated warrantless entries onto its property in 2007 and 2008 to investigate anonymous complaints violated the Fourth Amendment and equivalent state protections. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because the searches were constitutional. The core reasoning was that the Mineral Mine Safety Act authorizes such inspections in a pervasively regulated industry, the searches satisfied the three-part test for warrantless administrative searches from New York v. Burger, and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the governing law was not clearly unconstitutional.

civil rightscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a coverage dispute between C.B. Fleet Company and Aspen Insurance UK Limited and Aspen Underwriting Syndicate 4711 over two excess-layer insurance binders issued for the period August 2008 to July 2009, relating to personal-injury claims arising from Fleet's oral sodium phosphate products. Fleet sought a declaratory judgment that the binders provided coverage, while Aspen sought rescission based on alleged material misrepresentations. The court granted Aspen's motion to stay the litigation pending arbitration. It concluded that the Aspen Insurance Binder incorporated by reference the arbitration clause contained in an underlying Swiss Re policy through its "follow form" provision, rendering the disputes arbitrable, and that the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims shared common questions of fact warranting a stay of the entire action for reasons of judicial economy.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Katrina Van Valen seeking long-term disability benefits under her employer's benefit plan administered by the Employee Welfare Benefits Committee of Northrop Grumman Corporation, claiming disability due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome after becoming ill in late 2006. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and decided to grant the defendant's motion while denying the plaintiff's, upholding the denial of benefits. The core reasoning was that the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion because the plaintiff failed to provide objective medical evidence supporting her inability to work, despite opportunities to do so, and her physicians' opinions appeared based primarily on subjective reports.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a commercial dispute between Belmont Partners and Mina Mar Group over three Common Stock Purchase Agreements for clean shell corporations, where Mina Mar paid only a partial deposit and the parties later reached a settlement agreement that ended arbitration proceedings. Belmont moved to confirm the arbitrator's award enforcing the settlement terms, while Mina Mar sought to vacate or suspend it and requested sanctions, claiming Belmont had failed to transfer certain stock certificates as promised. The court granted confirmation of the arbitration award and denied the motions to vacate or suspend as well as both parties' sanctions requests. It reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act provides narrow grounds for review that were not met here, the settlement agreement did not require additional stock transfers, a prior Canadian court decision had preclusive effect, and there was insufficient basis for sanctions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Historic Green Springs, Inc., a land conservation group, suing the EPA over its failure to object to a Virginia-issued VPDES permit allowing a wastewater treatment plant to discharge treated sewage into a creek flowing through properties in a national historic landmark district protected by conservation easements. Plaintiffs alleged that the EPA had nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Water Act and National Historic Preservation Act that it failed to fulfill, seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the EPA's motion to dismiss, ruling that the agency's inaction in not objecting to the state permit did not constitute an 'approval' or 'undertaking' triggering NHPA obligations, and that no other basis for a nondiscretionary duty was shown. The related motion by the Louisa County Water Authority was denied as moot once the claims against the EPA were dismissed.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Judy Moon's suit against her late husband's former employer, BWX Technologies, seeking $200,000 in life insurance benefits under a benefits package he selected while employed. After the husband qualified for long-term disability and allegedly failed to convert coverage to a personal policy, BWX denied the claim, leading Moon to assert state-law claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty in state court. Defendants removed the action to federal court under ERISA preemption, and Moon moved to remand, arguing the claims were not subject to ERISA. The district court denied the motion to remand, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in part, on the ground that the claims were completely preempted by ERISA's civil enforcement provision and thus created federal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the dispute concerned benefits under an employee welfare plan governed by ERISA, even though Moon framed the claims as independent state-law contract matters.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the government's request that defendant Pamela Kay Divine, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud a health benefit program and mail fraud, be ordered to pay restitution of $130,157 to the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services. The company she helped run had billed Medicaid for services by personal care aides who lacked the required 40-hour training. The court denied the restitution request. It reasoned that although the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act applied, restitution must be based on proven actual loss to a victim rather than the intended loss used for sentencing guidelines calculations, and the government had not established such actual loss.

criminal lawhealthcare

Nancy Grant sued the Embarq Employee Benefits Committee after her pension benefits under a Sprint plan were offset by her workers' compensation benefits, despite the Summary Plan Description making no mention of any such reduction. The full plan document permitted the offset, but the court found that ERISA requires SPDs to clearly identify circumstances that could result in offsets of expected benefits. The committee's decision to apply the offset was reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court granted summary judgment to Grant because the SPD's failure to disclose the offset created a conflict with the plan that must be resolved in favor of the SPD, violating ERISA's disclosure rules. The case centered on whether the plan administrator properly interpreted the benefits documents in light of federal requirements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC's motion for a preliminary injunction against Arthrex, Inc., alleging that Arthrex's Centerline surgical instrument infringes MicroAire's U.S. Patent No. 5,306,284 for an endoscopic device used in carpal tunnel release surgery. The court denied the motion, concluding that MicroAire failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the patent's 'actuating means' term was construed to exclude devices where the blade moves distally during elevation, and Arthrex's product uses such a mechanism, precluding both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The court also found that MicroAire did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm from loss of goodwill, price erosion, or reputational damage. Either of these failures independently supported denial of the injunction, and the balance of equities and public interest did not alter that outcome.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved parents suing the Bedford County School Board under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act after an administrative hearing officer ruled that the school had provided their child D.B. with a free appropriate public education. The parents alleged that the school failed to properly evaluate D.B. for a specific learning disability and develop an adequate individualized education program, leading them to enroll the child in a private school and seek reimbursement. The court granted summary judgment to the parents, reversing the hearing officer's decision, while granting the school's motion to strike certain additional evidence. The core reasoning was that the school's evaluation and program were insufficient to meet the Act's requirements for providing educational benefit, and proper notice had been given regarding the private placement request.

civil rights

The case concerned the government's request for restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 on behalf of a victim depicted in child pornography images that defendant Mark Church had unlawfully possessed. Church had pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography and the government sought to hold him liable for the full amount of the victim's losses, which included psychological harms from the ongoing circulation of her images. The court held that restitution is mandatory when a victim is harmed as a result of the offense but that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the specific losses proximately caused by the defendant's conduct. Because the record did not support findings on the full measure of such losses, the court awarded only a nominal restitution amount of $100.

criminal law

This case involves consolidated bankruptcy appeals challenging rulings on claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against a debt collector for letters sent to consumers. The appeals raised issues of whether the letters violated FDCPA sections by implying criminal conduct to disgrace a debtor, by failing to provide the required 30-day dispute period, and whether asserted damages were limited to attorney fees. The district court found that the bankruptcy court erred on all three questions presented, including by misapplying FDCPA strict liability standards to the letter language and the bona fide error defense. The matter was remanded to the bankruptcy court with instructions for further proceedings.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Church, a child pornography prosecution, the government moved to seal Attachment A to its restitution memorandum, which contained victim impact statements, psychological reports, economic analyses, and a legal memorandum supporting restitution for the victim. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that the government had not complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) by submitting both a complete sealed version and a redacted public version of the document. The court reasoned that the statute permits sealing of materials disclosing information about a child victim but requires redaction of only the identifying or private portions for the public record, while preserving the common-law and First Amendment rights of public access to judicial documents; it determined that certain sections like the appendix and prior court orders did not qualify for sealing, whereas the victim impact statement and related reports did.

criminal lawprocedure