Martin Karl Reidinger

This case involved plaintiffs who purchased lots in a North Carolina luxury subdivision and sued the developer defendants for failing to complete promised infrastructure, water/sewer systems, and amenities as required by the lot purchase agreements, asserting claims including fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of implied warranty, violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings based on mandatory arbitration clauses in the contracts. The court granted the motions to compel arbitration as to all defendants and stayed the action. It reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to the commerce-involved contracts, the arbitration provisions were valid and enforceable without being unconscionable, the disputes fell within the clause's scope, and non-signatory defendants could enforce arbitration through equitable estoppel because the claims arose directly from the agreements.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Precision Links against USA Products Group and Home Depot over a cargo tie-down strap covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,673,464, along with a state unfair trade practices claim. After the court construed the patent claims, the plaintiff conceded that the accused products fell outside the patent's scope, leading the court to enter summary judgment for the defendants on the infringement claim; the unfair trade practices count had already been dismissed earlier. The court granted the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, ruling the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because the plaintiff continued litigating after its claims were shown to be meritless, filed an untimely appeal to the Federal Circuit, and pursued additional motions in an attempt to revive that appeal, all of which unnecessarily increased the defendants' expenses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this ERISA case, the plaintiff sought long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan administered by Cigna after the insurer failed to respond to his administrative appeal. The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add North Carolina state-law claims for unfair claims settlement practices and unfair trade practices, but the court denied the motion on the ground that ERISA's civil enforcement scheme completely preempts such claims. The court also denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded the matter to the plan administrator for a decision on the appeal, holding that the administrator's failure to respond required further administrative proceedings rather than an award of benefits by the court.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who worked as house parents at a boarding school for troubled teens and claimed unpaid overtime wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), along with eleven supplemental claims under North Carolina law such as violations of the state Wage and Hour Act, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, conversion, emotional distress, and unfair trade practices, plus a demand for punitive damages. The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing the Second through Twelfth Causes of Action and the punitive damages demand while allowing the FLSA claim to proceed. The core reasoning was that the supplemental state claims failed to state viable causes of action, often because they were preempted by federal law or did not meet pleading standards under Twombly.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from a 2008 highway collision in North Carolina in which a distracted tractor-trailer driver struck a car, injuring the driver and passengers including two minors; the plaintiffs sued the manufacturers of an in-cab text-messaging system (Geologic Solutions and Xata) along with other defendants, alleging negligent design because the system permitted messages to be read while the vehicle was moving at highway speeds. The manufacturers moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the direct claims and related cross-claims for contribution and indemnification. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the motions, holding that the complaint failed to allege facts establishing any legal duty owed by the manufacturers to protect third parties from a driver’s inattentiveness and therefore did not state a viable product-liability claim under North Carolina law. The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and rejected arguments that the system’s design created foreseeable risks sufficient to impose liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between BernzOmatic and Worthington over a supply agreement for fuel cylinders, with BernzOmatic alleging breach of contract, Lanham Act violations for trade dress infringement and false advertising, and unfair trade practices, while Worthington counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement and breach. A jury found Worthington liable on the breach and Lanham Act claims and awarded over $12 million in damages to BernzOmatic. In this opinion, the court denied Worthington's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, finding the verdict supported by substantial evidence and certain arguments procedurally waived; it granted BernzOmatic's requests for a permanent injunction against further infringement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees related to the Lanham Act and Chapter 75 claims, while denying a mandatory product recall. The reasoning centered on the jury's findings, preservation requirements for post-verdict motions under Rule 50, and the need to prevent ongoing harm without evidence of widespread current infringement.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement action brought by BorgWarner against Honeywell concerning three patents on investment-cast titanium compressor wheels for turbochargers. BorgWarner moved for summary judgment arguing that assignor estoppel and equitable estoppel barred Honeywell's defenses of license, ownership, inventorship correction, and declaratory judgments of invalidity and unenforceability. Honeywell cross-moved for summary judgment asserting that the patent claims were invalid as anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The court denied both motions, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the inventor made inconsistent representations and whether prior art rendered the straight-bladed wheel design obvious to a person of ordinary skill.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement suit brought by BorgWarner against Honeywell over U.S. Patents for investment-cast titanium compressor wheels manufactured by a fully automated "pullable" process. The opinion addresses the parties' cross-motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions, excluding certain opinions (such as those based on an untimely disclosed 2009 tool) for failure to provide required reports or disclosures, while permitting other testimony on issues including divided infringement, prior art invalidity, and automation of manufacturing tools. The core reasoning applied Daubert factors to assess reliability, sufficient factual basis, and proper application of methods, alongside procedural rules on expert reports and timely disclosure.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Moseley suing Japanese defendants Fillmore Co., Ltd. and its president Yusa Noriyuki, along with Nevada distributor Ed Roman Enterprises, Inc., for alleged Lanham Act trademark violations and related state claims concerning guitars and related products. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), among other grounds. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, dismissing the claims against Fillmore and Noriyuki without prejudice due to insufficient contacts with North Carolina or the United States, as their only connection was through the distributor and they had no direct presence, advertising, or sales activity in the forum. Because those defendants were deemed necessary parties under Rule 19, the court further dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice, rendering the motion against Roman moot. The core reasoning centered on the absence of minimum contacts establishing personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a diversity action filed by Tennessee residents Betty and Edward Madewell against the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, its tribal casino gaming enterprise, and a North Carolina LLC that manages the Harrah's Cherokee Smokey Mountains Casino, seeking damages for personal injuries from a trip-and-fall incident at the casino. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including tribal sovereign immunity. The court dismissed all claims against the Tribe and its gaming enterprise without prejudice due to tribal sovereign immunity, dismissed claims against the non-existent casino entity with prejudice, and dismissed claims against the management LLC without prejudice on comity grounds. The core reasoning was that the Tribe and its enterprise enjoy sovereign immunity from suit in federal court, while the LLC's involvement in casino operations raised colorable questions of tribal jurisdiction best addressed first by the tribal court to respect tribal self-governance.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiffs Blue Ridge Public Safety and related parties suing Sheriff James Ashe and the Jackson County Sheriff's Office in state court for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, later adding a federal §1983 claim for civil rights violations after removal to federal court. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment after a de novo review, finding genuine issues of material fact on the remaining claims, and dismissed the substantive due process claim. Defendants then appealed the denial, asserting qualified immunity and seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The court denied the stay motion, reasoning that factual disputes prevent immediate appealability of the qualified immunity ruling under the collateral order doctrine, as a jury must first resolve what occurred before any legal determination on clearly established rights.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Paula Crabill suing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging failure to accommodate her medical conditions, including Chiari Malformation, and discrimination in her role as a guidance counselor. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. It granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's, dismissing the case. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations due to the untimely filing of her EEOC charge, and alternatively, she failed to show an adverse employment action or a viable failure-to-accommodate claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Encompass Advisors, Ltd. against Unapen, Inc., alleging defective software and services provided under agreements between the parties. The defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer venue. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss and granting the transfer of venue to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven Division. The core reasoning was that the claims are governed by a 2007 service agreement containing a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Connecticut, making transfer appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) despite the plaintiff's arguments that an earlier agreement without such a clause applied.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Jackson County filed a state court action seeking a declaration that it could exercise eminent domain to condemn Duke Energy's Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse, part of a FERC-licensed hydroelectric project, and to order the condemnation. Duke removed the case to federal district court, asserting that the Federal Power Act completely preempted the state-law claims and created federal question jurisdiction, while also filing counterclaims. The court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the County's complaint pleaded only state-law causes of action, federal preemption was raised only as a defense, and exclusive jurisdiction to review FERC orders lies in the D.C. Circuit where the County's related petition was already pending. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to state court.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing her former employer for wrongful discharge in violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and North Carolina public policy after her termination. The defendant moved to dismiss the state-law claim, arguing that an FMLA violation cannot serve as the basis for a wrongful discharge action under North Carolina law. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, citing precedent that FMLA violations do not create a public policy exception to at-will employment. The district court adopted the recommendation after de novo review, finding the cited federal district court decisions persuasive and an analogous North Carolina appellate case on federal regulations relevant, and therefore dismissed the claim with prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The defendant moved to suppress a firearm seized from his vehicle and his statements to police, arguing that his consent to the search was tainted by an unlawful seizure and that Miranda warnings were administered too late during custodial interrogation. The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant suppression, holding that the consent was voluntarily given so the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, that pre-warning statements must be suppressed, and that post-warning statements were admissible under Elstad. The court also denied a motion to strike the government's late objections to the recommendation, finding no prejudice to the defendant despite the untimeliness.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, filed by German citizen Susanne Neves against her estranged husband Erico Neves and others, seeking the return of the couple's two minor children to Germany after the father allegedly wrongfully removed them from their habitual residence in Germany to North Carolina in February 2009. The court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the petition for return of the children, while denying the father's requests for a continuance and psychological evaluations. The core reasoning was that the children were habitual residents of Germany, the removal breached the mother's custody rights under German law, and no exceptions applied, such as a grave risk of harm, based on the evidence of the parties' residence, consent, and circumstances.

family law

The case involves Lance Mfg., LLC and Archway Bakeries, LLC suing Voortman Cookies Limited for trademark infringement after Voortman began selling soft oatmeal cookies in packaging that allegedly copied Archway's distinctive trade dress, including red stripes, gold trim, and specific graphic elements. Lance, which acquired Archway's assets including its intellectual property through a bankruptcy auction, asserted claims under the Lanham Act for false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement, and North Carolina unfair trade practices laws, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Following a hearing on Lance's motion, the court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that Lance was likely to succeed on the merits due to the similarity of the packages and the strength of the Archway trade dress, that Lance would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The court reasoned that the Voortman packaging created a likelihood of consumer confusion and noted that Voortman had continued using the design despite prior notice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Precision Components, Inc. suing C.W. Bearing USA, Inc. over state law claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, and unfair and deceptive trade practices tied to information in U.S. Patent No. 6,939,052, after the case was removed to federal court on the basis of patent issues arising in the claims. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, with the defendant moving on the plaintiff's remaining claims and the plaintiff moving on the defendant's counterclaims for patent invalidity and non-infringement. The court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's motion. It held that federal jurisdiction was proper because the state claims required resolution of substantial patent law questions and that the patent invalidity counterclaim could be adjudicated independently even after dismissal of other claims, citing precedents on arising-under jurisdiction and counterclaim survival.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement action brought by The Attic Tent, Inc. against Jerry L. Copeland and Progressive Energy Solutions, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. Re. 36,975 for an insulated attic hatchway cover, along with related counterclaims including non-infringement and invalidity. The court resolved the parties' cross-motions for claim construction of disputed terms in the patent's claims without a hearing. Relying on intrinsic evidence such as the patent specification, prosecution history, and prior art references, the court construed key phrases including "rigid construction" to require walls formed of three layers with a core extending between inner and outer surfaces, and applied parallel meanings to dependent claims. The decision provides the legal scope of the asserted claims for further proceedings on infringement and validity.

procedurebusiness & regulatory