C. Ashley Royal

This case involves a premises liability claim arising from plaintiff Jimmy Woodard's trip-and-fall accident in a Wal-Mart store, where he allegedly stubbed his foot on a box of weights left on the floor in an aisle. The court addressed Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff's motion for sanctions based on the alleged spoliation of a security videotape showing the area at the time of the fall, and related procedural motions. The court granted the sanctions motion in part, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Wal-Mart acted in bad faith by losing or destroying the videotape and that this prejudiced the plaintiff, which warranted a jury instruction on a rebuttable presumption that the tape contained evidence harmful to Wal-Mart regarding its knowledge of the hazard. It denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed on whether Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and whether the plaintiff exercised ordinary care, issues that the sanctions ruling helped establish for trial. The court also denied sanctions related to the failure to preserve the box itself and denied leave to file a sur-reply.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Baker v. General Electric Capital Corp., the plaintiff sued the defendant credit furnisher under the FCRA for inaccurate reporting of a debt discharged in her husband's bankruptcy and also brought a state-law claim for credit defamation arising from collection attempts and credit score harm. The defendant moved to dismiss the defamation count on grounds that FCRA section 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts all state-law claims against furnishers. The court denied the motion, reasoning that section 1681t(b) preempts only state statutory requirements and does not reach common-law tort actions, which remain subject to the narrower preemption rule in section 1681h(e).

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Hattie Dickerson, a nurse of Spanish and Native American descent at a VA medical center, filed Title VII claims alleging race/national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after reporting harassment of a colleague, which led to her own harassment by other nurses, a lowered performance review, and related incidents. In ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted it in part and denied it in part, allowing her discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed because the defendants failed to show the absence of triable issues, and also denying summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim stemming from nurse harassment. The court granted summary judgment on the portions of the hostile work environment claim based on requests for medical information and ward assignments, finding those did not properly support such a claim under Title VII. The decision was based on viewing facts in the light most favorable to Dickerson and determining that defendants had not met their burden for summary judgment on the viable claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case challenged a Georgia statute that prohibits carrying weapons in places of worship. Plaintiffs, including a gun rights organization, a church, and licensed gun owners, argued that the law violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms and First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by preventing them from carrying firearms for self-defense during worship services. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The court reasoned that places of worship qualify as sensitive places where firearm restrictions are permissible under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and that the law does not substantially burden religious exercise.

gunsreligious libertycriminal law

In this case, Plaintiff Terry Tindall sought to compel production of attorney-client communications from Defendants H & S Homes and related entities, alleging they were used to facilitate fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid paying a $343,100 judgment. Defendants asserted attorney-client privilege. After in camera review, the court found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case that the communications furthered fraudulent transfers under the Georgia Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, triggering the crime-fraud exception to privilege. The court granted the motion to compel in part, ordering production of communications related to the closure of H & S Homes and creation of successor entities like Triangle Homes.

procedurecriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a third-party claim by Juanita Davenport asserting ownership of $214,980 in currency that defendant Orlando Muckle had agreed to forfeit as part of his guilty plea to a drug conspiracy charge. The court dismissed Davenport's claim and denied her motion to vacate the preliminary forfeiture order. The claim was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after her attorney received notice of the preliminary order, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), and service on the attorney constituted proper notice under due process standards. As a result, Davenport forfeited any opportunity to assert her interest through the ancillary proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Sun American Bank and Fairfield Financial Services over a participation agreement for a $21.8 million construction loan to develop condominiums in Florida, where Sun American had funded a 16% share. Sun American sued for breach after learning Fairfield had downgraded the loan's credit rating multiple times in 2007 due to the borrower's liquidity issues without disclosure, and sought enforcement of the agreement's repurchase clause. Fairfield countersued for Sun American's failure to continue funding draws. The court granted summary judgment to Sun American, holding that Fairfield breached disclosure duties under Sections 4 and 10 of the Participation Agreement and the repurchase obligation under Section 13, based on undisputed evidence of the non-disclosures and resulting risk changes.

business & regulatory

The case was a Section 1983 action brought by a father, individually and as estate administrator, against Georgia Department of Corrections employees, alleging that they violated his son's constitutional rights by beating him during incarceration, which caused his death from pulmonary emboli linked to deep vein thrombosis. Defendants moved to exclude the plaintiff's causation expert, Dr. William Thompson, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court granted the motion and excluded the expert, reasoning that his testimony failed Daubert reliability requirements because it lacked sufficient factual basis, employed unreliable methodology relying on speculation and possibilities rather than established medical connections, and would not assist the trier of fact.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a nursing home property sale in Georgia where warranty deeds from 2003 and 2005 omitted the legal description for the Lewis Tract, a parcel including part of the building and parking lot. Petitioner NAB sought to reform the deeds to include the tract and quiet title, while the U.S. Government opposed reformation to preserve IRS tax liens filed against the original owner after the 2003 sale. The court granted summary judgment for NAB, ordering equitable reformation of the deeds because all parties to the transactions undisputedly intended to convey the entire property. Reformation was held to relate back to the April 2003 transfer date under Georgia law on mutual mistake, meaning the liens filed afterward did not attach to the Lewis Tract.

propertytaxesprocedure

The case involves Purser Truck Sales suing to recover IRS penalties assessed for failing to file Form 8300 reports on five 2001 vehicle sales exceeding $10,000 in cash or cash equivalents, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 60501. Purser admitted missing timely filings for four transactions but contested the maximum penalties, which apply only for intentional disregard under 26 U.S.C. § 6721(e), and disputed whether one transaction required reporting at all. Both parties moved for summary judgment, but the court denied the motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the authorization for penalties and the reporting obligation for the disputed transaction.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case was a putative class action by a car purchaser against the administrators of a Guaranteed Auto Protection (GAP) policy addendum to his vehicle financing contract, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and related tort claims for failing to refund a pro rata share of the prepaid GAP premium after he paid off the underlying loan early. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and dismissed the entire action. The core reasoning was that the contract imposed a notice-of-cancellation requirement as a condition precedent to any refund obligation, which the plaintiff did not satisfy, and that the tort claims were independently barred by Georgia's economic loss rule because they sought purely economic damages arising only from alleged contractual duties rather than any independent duty or personal/property injury.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision in a dispute between William Holmes (and his company Airtrek) and General Electric Capital Corp. (GECC) over aircraft lease agreements and related security deposits. Holmes filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and claimed GECC improperly retained approximately $2.7 million in deposits from leases for aircraft like the Astra and Falcon; GECC counterclaimed for about $2.5 million in additional damages arising from defaults on the leases. After a multi-day trial, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that GECC properly retained the deposits, was entitled to the damages, and had not breached any agreements or covenants. On appeal, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings as not clearly erroneous, including on issues of contract interpretation, good faith, and damages under Connecticut law governing the leases.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves a breach of contract claim brought by GE Capital against Nucor Drilling and its president James Jones under diversity jurisdiction. GE Capital loaned Nucor over $1.8 million secured by drilling equipment, which Nucor and Jones guaranteed; after Nucor defaulted by making no payments, GE repossessed the equipment and sold it at a private auction for $407,000, then sought the deficiency balance. The court granted summary judgment to GE Capital on liability, finding the default and guaranty obligations undisputed, but denied summary judgment on damages. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether GE Capital reasonably mitigated damages, including questions about the high repossession costs, the drop in equipment value between default and sale, and the adequacy of sale advertising.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Essex Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it had no obligation to cover H & H Land Development Corp. under a commercial general liability policy for amounts paid to settle claims by adjacent property owners damaged by stormwater runoff, silt, and sediment from H & H's subdivision construction. The district court granted summary judgment to Essex and to the McNeal Agency. The court held that the policy's pollution exclusion barred coverage because the silt, sediment, and runoff constituted pollutants, irritants, or contaminants under the plain language of the exclusion, as interpreted in controlling precedent. Because Essex owed no coverage to H & H, its separate indemnity claim against McNeal was rendered moot.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a railroad engineer suing his employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for back and neck injuries allegedly caused by excessive locomotive vibration and a defective seat during a trip from Savannah to Macon, Georgia. The court addressed multiple motions to exclude expert testimony from both parties under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part after reviewing the experts' qualifications, methodologies, and relevance to the claims. The reasoning focused on whether each expert's opinions were based on reliable principles and methods, with specific findings on issues like medical causation and vibration analysis.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Kinser v. Plans Administration Committee of Citigroup, Inc., the plaintiff sued under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare plan after the administrator terminated payments she had received for approximately nine years due to bipolar disorder and related conditions. The court granted the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The decision rested on the determination that the administrator's termination was arbitrary and unreasonable because it relied primarily on the opinion of a non-treating psychiatrist who performed a file review, rather than the consistent evaluations and records from the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist.

labor & employmenthealthcare

Dr. Jeff Siler, a former school administrator in the Hancock County School District, sued the Board of Education and several employees in their individual and official capacities, claiming gender and age discrimination, retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA, violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various Georgia state-law claims. The suit arose from a series of employment actions including transfers, demotions, and contract adjustments following investigations into sexual harassment allegations against Siler and disputes with supervisors. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, concluding there was no evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent, that the district's actions were supported by legitimate, non-pretextual reasons such as performance issues and harassment complaints, and that Siler received adequate due process under applicable law. State-law claims were not addressed in the federal summary judgment ruling excerpted here.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns a dispute over disability insurance benefits between Phillip Cowart, a former company president and policyholder, his wife Annemie Cowart as policy owner, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. After the insurer terminated benefits for Cowart's claimed disability, the plaintiffs sued in state court for breach of contract and bad faith under Georgia law; the defendant removed the case and moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims were preempted by ERISA because the policy was part of an employee welfare benefit plan. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the policy qualified as an ERISA plan since the employer had established and funded it for key employees with premiums paid by company funds and a group discount, and that ERISA therefore preempted the state-law claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert an ERISA claim within fifteen days. The decision rested on the statutory definition of an employee welfare benefit plan and evidence that the employer, not the individuals, initiated and maintained the coverage.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a dispute between J & V Development and Athens-Clarke County over the county's denial of a Special Land Use Permit for a proposed subdivision of affordable single-family homes. The plaintiff sued under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the denial had a disparate impact on low-income minorities. The court addressed the parties' Daubert motions to exclude each other's expert witnesses on statistics, demographics, and housing markets. The court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part while denying the plaintiffs' motion as moot, finding that one expert's opinions relied on unverified assumptions and lacked reliable methodology while the other expert's rebuttal testimony was admissible in limited respects. The rulings focused on whether the experts' methods met standards for reliability and relevance under Daubert.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved a Bibb County venue known as Club Exotica, which provided nude and semi-nude entertainment, suing the county, its sheriff, and others over alleged repeated violations of its First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights through actions related to its alcohol beverage license, law enforcement investigations, arrests of performers, and related regulatory enforcement. After a lengthy procedural history, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the club's claims as defined in its Second Amended Complaint. The court granted the county's motion in part and denied it in part while denying the club's partial motion in full, applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and evaluating the evidence presented on the constitutional claims without finding sufficient support for all of the club's allegations.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatorycriminal law