Lisa Godbey Wood

In this case, buyers Guy and Jacquelyn Carrier sued seller Tim Jordaan and Aventure Catamarans after a new fifty-foot catamaran vessel they purchased sank during its first voyage from Florida to Virginia, alleging claims including breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict liability, negligence, emotional distress, fraud, and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After the defendants failed to retain counsel or appear in court despite warnings, the court entered default against them and considered the buyers' motion for default judgment. The court granted the motion as to liability on the strict liability, warranty, and Magnuson-Moss claims because the defendants did not show cause why judgment should not be entered, but denied it on the emotional distress, fraud, and FDUTPA claims; it deferred any damages award pending a hearing due to insufficient detail in the buyers' calculations, including for punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Tootle v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a former CSX utility worker sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the former Federal Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts, claiming that her shoulder injuries resulted from cumulative trauma caused by job duties such as cleaning locomotives and lifting heavy objects. The district court granted CSX’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff offered no evidence that CSX breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace or that any equipment was defective under the safety statutes, noting that speculation about better equipment or assistance and statistics from other employees’ different injuries did not establish negligence or foreseeability. Because FELA requires some proof of breach and is not a strict-liability statute, the absence of such evidence required dismissal.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves five individual plaintiffs from different states who purchased Frigidaire front-load washing machines manufactured by Electrolux, alleging that design defects in the drum, gasket, and bellows caused persistent mold and mildew buildup that damaged clothing and permeated homes; the plaintiffs further claimed that Electrolux knew of the defect via internal service documents but failed to warn consumers or honor warranties. The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and related causes of action, while seeking to certify a nationwide or multi-state class. The court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux’s motion to dismiss and motion to partially strike class allegations, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in full. The core reasoning centered on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy state-specific notice and privity requirements for warranty claims, variations in state laws that precluded class treatment, and insufficient predominance and typicality for class certification under Rule 23.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In FPL Food, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture, a beef processing plant sued the USDA, its acting secretary, and a USDA inspector, alleging that the inspector sexually harassed and retaliated against plant employees from 2004 to 2007, which disrupted operations and prompted claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Bivens actions for First and Fifth Amendment violations, and state-law claims of trespass and interference with contract. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment and Bivens counts but denied it as to the APA claim and the state-law counts, allowing those to proceed while lifting a prior stay. The core reasoning centered on prudential standing limits, which barred the employer from asserting its employees' constitutional rights as a third party without the necessary alignment of interests and hindrance to the rights-holders themselves.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Louis Silverstein and Larry Vinson sued Procter & Gamble under a strict products liability theory, alleging that Crest Pro-Health Rinse mouthwash caused temporary tooth discoloration and taste impairment due to its active ingredient. Plaintiff Vinson also claimed the product's warning label was inadequate. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the inadequate warning claim because Vinson admitted he did not read the label, so any insufficiency could not be the proximate cause of his injuries under Georgia law. The court denied summary judgment on the remainder of the strict liability claim, finding sufficient evidence that Vinson suffered a compensable injury and that the product could be the proximate cause based on expert testimony.

torts & liability

Ms. Tobar sued the United States after slipping and falling in the lobby restroom of a federal correctional facility while visiting her incarcerated son, alleging the government failed to keep the premises safe and caused her injuries. After a liability-phase bench trial with witness testimony and evidence, the district court ruled for the defendant. The court concluded that the government had met the applicable standard of ordinary care by maintaining a thrice-daily cleaning and inspection routine in a low-traffic restroom with no prior incidents, that any liquid on the floor had not been present long enough to be discovered through reasonable inspections, and that the lighting was adequate.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case involved state prisoner Johnny Ray Ogle's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1999 Georgia conviction for aiding and abetting armed robbery, for which he received a life sentence, along with claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (eight subparts), ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and unfair state court factfinding. After the Eleventh Circuit remanded for further review of the exhausted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims and directed that any denial be with prejudice, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's prior reasoning on the non-appellate-counsel claims and denied them with prejudice. The court then addressed the appellate counsel claims on the merits, evaluating alleged failures to raise issues such as comments on post-arrest silence, Giglio violations regarding undisclosed agreements with accomplices, and other trial errors, ultimately concluding that the claims did not warrant relief because the underlying arguments lacked merit or the errors were not prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

In this civil case, plaintiff BFS Retail & Commercial Operations sued defendant Tony Harrelson, a former store manager, alleging that he gave away store inventory without payment, converted merchandise for personal use, and falsified records to conceal his actions, asserting claims for conversion, fraud, and misfeasance. After a jury trial, the plaintiff received a verdict of $518,596, and the defendant, who had proceeded pro se at trial, moved for a new trial citing absent witnesses from the plaintiff's list, an unsupported verdict, and hearsay evidence. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the pretrial order designated the witnesses as optional 'may call' witnesses rather than guaranteed 'will call' ones, the defendant had not objected to the evidence before or during trial, and he had even used the exhibit himself. The court further found no basis to overturn the verdict as contrary to the evidence or law.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Blanche Gentry sued Beverly Enterprises-Georgia, Inc. for ordinary and professional negligence, negligent supervision, and violations of federal nursing home regulations after her 2006 admission to the defendant's facility. The defendant moved to dismiss and compel arbitration based on an agreement signed only by the plaintiff's husband, who had been asked to complete admission paperwork. Following a bench trial on arbitrability, the court found that the plaintiff did not sign the agreement, that the arbitration provision was expressly not required for admission, and that the husband lacked actual or apparent authority under Georgia law to bind the plaintiff to arbitration. The court therefore held the agreement unenforceable and denied the motion to compel arbitration.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability

The case concerned claims brought by the mother and administratrix of Antonio Presley, who died after being arrested by Blackshear police officers on drug-related charges and detained at the Pierce County jail. Plaintiff alleged that various city, county, police, jail, and EMS defendants violated the decedent's rights by denying essential medical care under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and committed state-law medical malpractice and negligence. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that Georgia Code Section 31-11-8 provided statutory immunity to the EMS paramedics on the state claims, and that no genuine issues of material fact supported the federal or other claims against the remaining defendants.

civil rightshealthcarecriminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the United States, as owner and manager of Cumberland Island National Seashore through the National Park Service, bringing trespass and nuisance claims against Dr. Ben Jenkins and The Church of the Verity, Inc., which holds a limited estate for years on a parcel where Jenkins resides. The defendants had begun constructing an addition to a house and a septic system. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring any further construction involving digging or excavation but permitting work that does not require it. The ruling rested on the Winter v. NRDC standard requiring a showing of likely irreparable harm, with the court finding that excavation posed such a risk to the protected land and artifacts while non-excavation work did not, alongside balancing equities and public interest in preservation.

environmentpropertyfederal power

The case involves Robert Sprinkle, a Caucasian police officer employed by the City of Douglas, Georgia since 1990, who sued the city and several officials for denying him a promotion to sergeant in 2006 in favor of a less senior African-American officer, along with related claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, race discrimination under Title VII and §1983, equal protection violations, conspiracy, and FMLA interference. Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on his FMLA claim, while defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court denied plaintiff's motion, granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part after reviewing evidence on the promotion process, exam scores used as pass/fail, interview assessments, and potential discriminatory or retaliatory factors in the decision-making.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Aqua Log, Inc. filed an in rem admiralty action under the Salvage Act seeking title or a salvage award for pre-cut logs lying on the bottom of Georgia's Altamaha River, which the company had located without a state permit. The State of Georgia intervened, asserted ownership of the logs under state statutes, and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The district court denied the motion, holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal admiralty jurisdiction only when the state is in actual possession of the res at the time of seizure. The court reasoned that Georgia's enactment of statutes, prior surveys of the river, and routine DNR patrols did not amount to actual possession, distinguishing those actions from constructive possession or a mere potential for conflict with federal authority. The ruling followed precedents such as The Davis and allowed the case to proceed to adjudicate the parties' rights in the logs.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

Plaintiffs, Virginia residents, purchased a catamaran from defendants in Florida and later sued in Georgia federal court alleging breach of warranties under state law and the Magnuson-Moss Act, plus negligence, strict liability, and fraud after the vessel took on water off the Georgia coast. Defendants moved to quash service of process and dismiss for insufficient service and lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming the individual defendant was fraudulently lured to Georgia solely for settlement talks and that service on him did not bind the corporate defendant. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the defendant's trip was not induced by artifice, that physical presence in the forum established jurisdiction, and that defendants failed to show service was improper as to either party.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In American Interstate Insurance v. Smith, an insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its commercial general liability policy did not cover claims from a fatal collision between a deputy's vehicle and a logging truck owned by Cooper Logging and driven by its employee Marshall Jordan, who was returning home after work. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury arising from the use of an auto owned or operated by an insured, and Cooper Logging maintained separate auto insurance for such risks. The court further held that Jordan was not an insured under the policy because, under Georgia law, driving a company vehicle home after completing work duties constitutes a personal mission outside the scope of employment.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a legal malpractice claim by plaintiff Wendell Jenifer against the Fleming law firm and two attorneys for their handling of his underlying slip-and-fall personal injury suit against a hotel. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact on breach of duty or proximate causation. The court denied the motions, finding factual disputes regarding which attorneys were responsible for the case after one left the firm, whether the firm sued the correct defendant, and whether the plaintiff could have prevailed in the underlying action but for the alleged negligence; it held that the "would have succeeded" standard for causation applies at trial rather than on summary judgment and that expert testimony created triable issues on the standard of care.

torts & liabilityprocedure

GIW Industries sued its former contractor JerPeg and owners Jerry and Peg Soultz for breaching nineteen purchase order contracts by failing to perform the specified work, and for fraud in submitting invoices claiming completion of that work. GIW also sued its former employee Quackenbush for fraudulently approving the invoices despite knowing the work was incomplete or altered, and for breaching his duty of loyalty by facilitating the scheme. The district court ruled on the defendants' summary judgment motions, granting them in part and denying them in part. It found material factual disputes over whether Quackenbush owed a fiduciary duty to GIW, whether he engaged in self-dealing, and whether the parties' oral modifications and invoicing practices altered the written contracts, while resolving certain claims in the defendants' favor where no such disputes existed.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved employment-related claims brought by a white female plaintiff against her former employer and related companies under Title VII, the ADA, Section 1981, and Georgia law, alleging failures to promote or accommodate, retaliation for complaints about discriminatory hiring and accommodation requests, a hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff abandoned the majority of her claims, leaving only a Section 1981 retaliation claim, an ADA retaliation claim, and an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for the court's consideration. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these remaining claims, after addressing preliminary evidentiary issues by striking portions of declarations that contained hearsay, conclusory statements, or contradictions with deposition testimony, and found that the plaintiff had produced no competent evidence to support her allegations of retaliation or severe emotional harm.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a former store manager who sued her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act, alleging that the company interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her by suspending and terminating her after she requested medical leave to adjust to new medications for bipolar disorder and hypertension. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The evidence showed that none of the plaintiff's healthcare providers had recommended a leave of absence for medication adjustment, that she had rejected advice to reduce her work schedule, and that her termination followed a documented performance reprimand and an argument in which she allegedly used profanity. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting an FMLA violation because the plaintiff had not demonstrated entitlement to protected leave or that her termination was pretextual.

labor & employment

This case involved an employment discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act brought by plaintiff Laura Stockton, who has a disability affecting her leg muscles, balance, and gait, against her former employer A World of Hope Childcare Learning Center. Stockton was hired to work with children in after-school and toddler programs but encountered difficulties with tasks such as lifting non-potty-trained children and other physical duties, leading to complaints and conflicts with supervisors over assignments and assistance from coworkers. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims. The core reasoning was that the evidence did not support a finding of unlawful discrimination or failure to accommodate, including that the plaintiff had not properly pursued interactive processes for accommodations after her hours were affected.

labor & employmentcivil rights