Richard W. Story

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed in Georgia by James Boone and related parties against Corestaff and affiliates, seeking to invalidate restrictive covenants in a non-compete agreement signed as part of Boone's employment as President and CEO. The agreement included a Delaware choice-of-law provision, and a parallel suit had been filed in Delaware alleging breach of fiduciary duties and contract. The court previously dismissed the Georgia action, finding that application of Delaware law did not violate Georgia public policy as it existed when the contract was formed and that the action did not encompass the full controversy. On the motion for reconsideration, the court applied the standard requiring new evidence or a manifest error of law, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding public policy shifts and filing circumstances, and denied the motion along with the request for a hearing.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., former dancers at Club Onyx sued the club owners and managers, alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees under wage and hour laws. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment focused solely on the first phase of discovery, which addressed the proper classification of the entertainers. After reviewing undisputed facts about the club's management structure, hiring auditions, rules enforcement by house moms and managers, dancer licensing requirements, and the economic realities of the dancers' investments and profit opportunities, the court applied the economic realities test to conclude that the plaintiffs were employees. Key factors included the club's control over operations and scheduling, the integral nature of the dancing to the business, and the limited ability of dancers to operate independently.

labor & employment

In United States v. Degaule, the defendant, charged with conspiring to launder drug trafficking proceeds along with several co-defendants, moved to suppress intercepted communications from wiretaps as well as evidence and statements obtained during a search and interview. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full and denied the motions. The court found that the defendant had given general consent to the search and seizure rather than a limited one, and that he had been advised of and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights without making an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel or silence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action in which relators alleged that a for-profit university and its parent company submitted false claims for federal Pell Grant and Stafford Loan funds by misrepresenting compliance with Title IV incentive-compensation prohibitions, accreditation standards, and student-eligibility rules in a Program Participation Agreement and in individual funding requests. The district court had previously denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint satisfied Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. Defendants then moved for reconsideration of that ruling, for certification of an interlocutory appeal limited to the sufficiency of PPA-based claims, and to strike portions of the complaint; the court denied all three motions, finding no clear error of law, no new controlling authority, and that the strike motion was procedurally barred under Rules 12(f) and 12(g).

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a putative securities class action in which investors alleged that Scientific-Atlanta and its executives engaged in channel-stuffing sales practices and improper revenue recognition under GAAP to conceal declining demand for transmission products during fiscal year 2001, thereby issuing materially false or misleading public statements that inflated the company's stock price in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not establish loss causation. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' expert reports failed to disaggregate the effects of the alleged misrepresentations from other market-wide and company-specific factors that could have caused the stock-price decline, and that allowing recovery without such proof would subject parties to unnecessary protracted litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal by the Atlanta Independent School System from an administrative law judge's ruling that the district failed to provide S.F., a student with autism, a free appropriate public education under the IDEA, along with related counterclaims and third-party claims against two school officials alleging failure to implement the IEP, improper classroom conduct, and injuries to the student. The court denied the motion for oral argument on two pending motions to dismiss after reviewing the record. The ruling on oral argument rested on the determination that the written filings were sufficient to resolve the issues, while the background section outlines the ALJ's findings of FAPE denial, the need for compensatory education and private placement, and the factual allegations supporting the third-party claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Glenn v. Brumby, plaintiff Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, a biological male diagnosed with gender identity disorder who was transitioning to live and present as a woman, was hired as an editor by the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel and later terminated by defendant Sewell Brumby after disclosing the transition and appearing at work in feminine attire on one occasion. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff against Brumby on the equal protection claim, holding that the termination was motivated in part by Glenn’s nonconformity to male gender stereotypes. The core reasoning applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which treats gender-stereotyping discrimination as a form of sex discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny when committed by a state actor.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved MedAssets seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, Federal Insurance, had a duty to defend it under D&O and E&O policies against a lawsuit filed by Cardiac Pacemakers and Guidant Sales. The underlying suit alleged tortious interference with contracts and misappropriation of trade secrets by MedAssets' subsidiary Aspen in connection with confidential pricing information for medical devices. The court granted summary judgment to MedAssets on the duty to defend under the D&O policy, finding the claims constituted a covered insured organization claim as a civil proceeding, but denied coverage under the E&O policy because the policy only applied to claims arising from negligent acts, errors, or omissions in performing healthcare product services and the underlying allegations involved intentional misconduct. Other pending discovery and sanctions motions were resolved as moot or granted in part based on the coverage rulings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), after a search of his residence yielded a pistol. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant lacked probable cause, and to dismiss the indictment, contending that the statute violates the Second Amendment under District of Columbia v. Heller, exceeds Congress's commerce power, and infringes equal protection by varying with state laws. The court denied the motion to suppress, determining that the warrant was supported by probable cause and that the Leon good faith exception would apply even if it were not. The court also denied the motion to dismiss, relying on Heller's explicit statement that its holding does not cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons.

gunscriminal lawfederal power

In this product liability case, the plaintiffs alleged that a manufacturing defect in the supplemental restraint system (airbag) of a Chrysler vehicle caused the death of Vicki Denton in a 2004 collision, and a jury returned a verdict in their favor. The defendant then filed post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, a stay pending appeal in a related case involving Georgia's seat belt statute, and review of the clerk's taxation of costs. The court denied the motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, concluding that the verdict was supported by the evidence and no prejudicial errors warranted retrial. It also denied the stay request, determining that the pending appeal would not provide clear guidance and would prejudice the plaintiffs given the defendant's financial situation. However, the court granted the motion for review of costs and reduced the awarded amount by disallowing certain unsubstantiated witness travel and accommodation expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and § 1920.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a federal criminal prosecution in which the defendant, after initially pleading guilty to charges in a three-count indictment and later withdrawing the plea, filed multiple pretrial motions challenging the government's evidence and the indictment itself. The court considered a magistrate judge's report recommending denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the defendant's home, along with other motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress additional evidence, and compel production of materials. The court adopted the recommendation and denied the primary suppression motion, finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on evidence linking the defendant to offenses involving a minor and the likelihood of child pornography on his home computer, and alternatively that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because officers reasonably relied on the warrant. Several other motions were denied as untimely, withdrawn by agreement, or deemed moot, while one motion regarding evidence authenticity was granted and responses were ordered on a remaining suppression issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding against former directors and officers of a bank holding company for breaches of fiduciary duties and negligence, along with a related declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a directors and officers liability insurance policy purchased from Cincinnati Insurance Company. The defendants moved to withdraw the reference of the case from the bankruptcy court to the district court, arguing that resolution required consideration of FIRREA, a federal law regulating financial institutions. The district court granted the motions to withdraw the reference, finding mandatory withdrawal appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) because the proceeding would require substantial and material consideration of FIRREA, and alternatively, permissive withdrawal for judicial efficiency given a companion proceeding. The FDIC's intervention supported the need for analysis of FIRREA regarding derivative claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, a legislative editor for the Georgia General Assembly who was perceived as male when hired but later diagnosed with gender identity disorder and planned to transition and present as female in the workplace. Glenn sued state officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that termination for these reasons violated the Equal Protection Clause through sex stereotyping and discrimination based on a medical condition. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged differential treatment without any identified legitimate government purpose, that gender nonconformity claims trigger heightened scrutiny under equal protection principles, and that anticipated reactions from others do not justify such distinctions.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves wireless providers Southeast Towers and New Cingular Wireless seeking to build a 250-foot cell tower in Pickens County, Georgia, near the Tate Historic District. After obtaining FCC and FAA approvals and a no-effect determination from the state historic preservation officer, the providers applied for a local building permit but were denied by the county commissioner, who found the tower would visually harm the historic area's integrity. The providers appealed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, arguing the county could not override federal approvals. The district court denied the appeal, holding that local zoning decisions on tower placement remain valid under the Act and that the county could independently assess compliance with standards including visual impacts on historic properties.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by current and former SunTrust Client Technology Specialists seeking unpaid overtime wages. The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order after the employer offered severance benefits to terminated employees, including some class members, but conditioned eligibility on dismissing the pending FLSA lawsuit and waiving related claims. The court granted the motion and converted it to a preliminary injunction after ten days, concluding that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success because conditioning a benefit tied to the employment relationship on abandoning an FLSA action violates the Act's anti-retaliation provision regardless of employer intent. The court further found irreparable harm from the chilling effect on employees' rights and ordered the company to issue a clarifying statement that lawsuit participation would not affect severance eligibility.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Russian citizens who entered the U.S. under the Alien Worker program and filed applications to adjust status to permanent residents in 2005; after more than two years without a decision, they sued for mandamus relief to compel the USCIS to adjudicate their applications. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the APA because the timing of decisions on adjustment applications is committed to the Attorney General's discretion. The court denied the motion, holding that the APA imposes a nondiscretionary duty on agencies to act within a reasonable time and that the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply only to final discretionary decisions on whether to grant or deny applications, not to unreasonable delays in processing them.

immigration

The case involves Diamond Power suing its former manager of service operations, Wayne Davidson, and its competitor, Clyde Bergemann, for misappropriating trade secrets related to sootblower manufacturing and repair services, along with related claims including violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference. The court addressed the defendants' motions for summary judgment by reviewing the record and considering facts in the light most favorable to Diamond Power. It analyzed the Georgia Trade Secrets Act's provisions allowing reasonable royalty damages when other losses cannot be proven, interpreted the CFAA as requiring access that exceeds authorization rather than mere misuse of authorized access, and noted that certain common-law claims may be superseded by the trade secrets statute.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case involves allegations of patent infringement by Tiber Laboratories against Hawthorn Pharmaceuticals and related entities regarding a three-ingredient pharmaceutical composition covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,979,689 for treating upper respiratory symptoms in pediatric patients. Tiber acquired the patent from a prior owner and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from marketing their generic versions of the product to children, including through court-ordered labeling restrictions. The court denied the request for injunctive relief, applying traditional equitable factors after the Supreme Court's eBay decision. The core reasoning focused on Tiber's significant delay in pursuing the injunction—spanning months after acquiring the patent and filing suit—which precluded a finding of irreparable harm, with the delay attributed in part to the patent's prior owner.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcareproperty

This case is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, in which plaintiffs allege that Scientific-Atlanta and its executives used channel stuffing, improper accounting, and misleading statements about product demand from January to June 2001 to conceal declining sales and inflate the company's stock price. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired SA securities or sold put options between January 18, 2001, and August 16, 2001. The court granted the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), concluding after rigorous analysis that the proposed class satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance of common issues of law and fact. The court rejected the defendants' challenges regarding conflicts among class members, market efficiency for the fraud-on-the-market presumption, and over-inclusiveness of the class period, finding the evidence supported certification.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a former Georgia prisoner against prison officials, challenging content-based denials of mailed publications and personal mail, the lack of procedural due process in rejecting or seizing such items, and alleged retaliation for filing grievances. The court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of its prior summary judgment ruling on the retaliation claim, vacated the liability finding against two defendants because affidavits created a material factual dispute, and denied plaintiff's corresponding motion. The opinion also addressed the standards for summary judgment and qualified immunity, analyzed exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA for the publication claims, and examined whether due process protections apply to denials of mail and publications regardless of content.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure