Julie E. Carnes

This case involves multiple defendants charged in a federal criminal prosecution who filed various pretrial motions to suppress evidence and statements obtained from warrantless searches, voice exemplars, and wiretaps, as well as motions for severance. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after reviewing objections and evidentiary hearing records. The court denied most motions to suppress, finding sufficient probable cause or valid exceptions for the searches, statements, and wiretaps, but granted suppression for one defendant (Gerald Durrance) due to lack of probable cause linking him to the targeted individual. It also denied all severance requests, determining that joint trial was appropriate. The case was set for trial with continuances granted under speedy trial provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Reverend William Hopkins, an ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, who sued his bishop and presiding elder after being reassigned to a less desirable church following complaints about his conduct and allegations of sexual misconduct with a parishioner. Hopkins brought federal claims alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and violations of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with various state-law claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal due process claim, dismissed the ADEA claim under the ministerial exception doctrine, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, which were remanded to state court. The core reasoning was that the ministerial exception precludes federal court review of internal church employment and assignment decisions involving ordained ministers, and there was no basis for a federal due process claim arising from the church's actions.

religious libertycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved defendant John Dennis Tan Ong, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act and related regulations, as well as conspiring to commit money laundering. After his arrest in Hawaii, a magistrate judge initially granted pretrial release on bond with conditions, but the government moved to revoke that order. The magistrate judge recommended granting the revocation motion, finding a significant risk that Ong would not appear for trial due to his lack of U.S. immigration status, an active ICE detainer, and his foreign ties as a Canadian citizen residing in British Columbia. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, ordering Ong detained pending resolution of the charges.

criminal lawimmigration

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Miller, the SEC sought remedies after a jury found defendant John P. Miller liable for five counts of federal securities fraud involving his role as CEO of Master Graphics, Inc., where he devised a plan to reclassify certain payments to meet financial targets. The court decided to impose a permanent injunction barring Miller from further violations of securities laws, a $75,000 civil penalty, and a five-year bar from serving as an officer or director of public companies. The reasoning centered on the jury's liability findings, the seriousness of the fraud, Miller's control over the company, and the need to deter future misconduct while considering the specific circumstances of the violations.

business & regulatory

This ERISA case involved participants in ING employee retirement plans who alleged that plan fiduciaries breached duties of loyalty, prudence, and disclosure by permitting continued investment in ING stock during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, when the stock price dropped sharply before partially recovering. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that the plan documents mandated inclusion of the ING stock option with no fiduciary discretion to remove it, the stock's decline tracked broader market conditions with adequate SEC disclosures, plaintiffs failed to allege the company was on the brink of collapse or that any misstatements were directed at plan participants, and certain defendants were not properly served or lacked fiduciary status.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves disputes over a series of patent licensing, assignment, and notification agreements between SIPCO and B&L regarding wireless mesh network technology, including rights of first offer on patent sales and exceptions for transfers to certain third parties, as well as subsequent releases and asset transfers. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract and other counts against B&L, Cellnet, and Hunt, while defendants filed counterclaims and multiple motions for summary judgment. The court granted several of B&L's summary judgment motions as unopposed or on the merits, finding that the 2005 Release superseded the 2004 right of first offer provisions and that certain asset transfers did not trigger notification obligations under Georgia contract law, while denying one motion on material breaches and ruling others moot due to a settlement between plaintiffs and Cellnet/Hunt. The court ordered the parties to clarify remaining claims for trial. The topics are business & regulatory, property, and procedure.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This ERISA case concerned a former Delta flight attendant's lawsuit to recover long-term disability benefits after the plan denied her claim in 2000. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that the plan gave the Administrative Committee broad discretion to interpret eligibility rules and make final decisions, and that the denial was reasonable because it rested on medical records and a functional capacity evaluation showing the plaintiff could perform some work, while the plaintiff submitted no contrary evidence during the administrative review process.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Tomco2 Equipment Co. alleged that Southeastern Agri-Systems, Inc. infringed two patents related to a chlorination system using hypochlorous acid for pathogen control in poultry processing plants. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to add three new defendants, including the defendant's principal and a customer company along with its principal, as well as the defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes reexamination of one patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The court granted the motion to amend, finding it timely under the discovery plan with no showing of undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice to the opposing party. The court also granted the stay, determining that the case was still at an early stage with no trial date set, that a stay would avoid potentially wasted effort if the PTO rejected the patent claims, and that neither party would suffer prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this insurance dispute, the plaintiff insurer sought a declaratory judgment voiding life insurance policies due to alleged misrepresentations in the applications after beneficiaries claimed benefits following the insured's presumed death. Defendants filed counterclaims alleging fraud and RICO violations by the insurer. The court dismissed the amended fraud and RICO claims for failing to plead fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b), and struck the defendants' handwriting expert report because it did not satisfy the admissibility requirements of Rule 702.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a nationwide class action by Charter Communications subscribers alleging that the company overcharged them for cable franchise fees under Georgia state law, retaining the excess amounts collected beyond what local franchising authorities actually imposed. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, an accounting, refunds under claims of unjust enrichment and money had and received, plus interest and fees. The court denied Charter's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that the state-law claims were not preempted by federal cable regulations under the Cable Acts and that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting recovery. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for oral argument, concluding that the written record was adequate for decision. Jurisdiction was accepted under the Class Action Fairness Act, with no federal question jurisdiction conceded by plaintiffs.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Abuhadba v. Gonzales, a lawful permanent resident who applied for naturalization in 2003 and completed a CIS interview in 2004 sued after his application remained pending due to an incomplete FBI background check, seeking an order for naturalization or prompt adjudication. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or alternatively to remand to CIS, arguing that the statutory 120-day period under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) had not started because the full investigation was incomplete. The court denied both motions, ruling that it had jurisdiction because the 120-day clock begins after the applicant's CIS interview rather than completion of the entire background investigation, while noting that approval of naturalization requires the background check results and allowing limited discovery on that issue before further proceedings.

immigrationprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Powell Company suing defendant McGarey Group and its officers for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, fraud, and related claims seeking unpaid compensation and other damages under an agreement for leasing and marketing services at the Atlantic Station project. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motions to amend their answer to assert an accord and satisfaction defense, and denied plaintiff's motion to substitute original depositions (while accepting the certified copies already filed). The court permitted the amendment because plaintiff had received the relevant checks and evidence without contesting defendants' prompt action, resulting in no prejudice to trial preparation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Sheryl Taylor's claims against her former employers under the Family and Medical Leave Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging improper termination after she requested time off due to a sinus infection. Defendants moved for summary judgment after the case was removed to federal court and procedural attempts to add claims or parties were denied. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The decision turned on whether Taylor qualified as an eligible employee under the FMLA based on the number of employees at her worksite, whether adequate notice of leave rights was provided, and whether her termination amounted to interference or retaliation.

labor & employment

This diversity case concerns two life insurance policies issued by American General on the life of Grongie Ward, with defendants as beneficiaries; after Grongie's presumed death, the insurer filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that certain policy increases and a separate policy were void due to forged signatures and material misrepresentations on the applications. Defendants asserted various state and federal counterclaims, prompting the insurer to move to dismiss most of them. The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part, granted as unopposed the defendants' motion to add a party, and granted the defendants' motions to amend their counterclaims. These rulings rested on assessments of pleading sufficiency under Rules 12(c) and 9(b), the viability of specific claims such as certain civil rights and RICO counts, and the unopposed status of other requests.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between competing sporting goods companies over the use of tennis legend Pete Sampras's image on tennis ball hoppers. Plaintiff Unique Sports Products held an exclusive license to market such products bearing Sampras's likeness from 2005 to 2007, but defendant Wilson Sporting Goods continued selling its competing product with the image after its prior license had expired in 2002. Plaintiff brought federal claims under the Lanham Act for false endorsement and false advertising, plus related state-law claims for unfair competition. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to compel and motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion to compel, and overruled the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's submissions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns the investigation and eight-day suspension of a high school student by Fulton County School District officials after a report that he stole and attempted to sell an MP3 player; the student and his father sued the district and individual officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the student's constitutional rights including equal protection. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss the original, first amended, and second amended complaints, as well as motions to amend. It denied the school district's motions to dismiss, granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend, and granted in part and denied in part the individual defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing the equal protection claim to proceed while requiring no more definite statement. The core reasoning was that the allegations, including differential treatment compared to a similarly situated white student, were sufficient to state a plausible claim that the student was not treated like others similarly situated.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a negligence claim by plaintiff Marva Perkins against defendant Crothall Healthcare, Inc. (a hospital cleaning contractor), alleging personal injuries from slipping and falling on residual fecal matter in a Grady Hospital hallway on October 10, 2002. The defendant moved for summary judgment after the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements of her premises liability claim, including the defendant's superior knowledge of any hazard and whether the defendant's actions were merely negligent rather than willful or malicious. The court also noted procedural defaults by the plaintiff in responding to the defendant's statement of material facts and the lack of evidence supporting alternative theories of liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Barbara Austin sued Ameriquest Mortgage Company and an appraiser in Georgia state court, alleging fraudulent inducement, fraud, theft, unjust enrichment, Georgia RICO violations, and other claims arising from a 2004 variable-rate mortgage loan on her home that allegedly involved misstated income on the application and an inflated appraisal. Ameriquest removed the action to federal court, asserting both diversity and federal question jurisdiction based on the RICO claims that referenced federal mail and wire fraud as predicate acts, and then moved to dismiss. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no diversity jurisdiction and no substantial federal question under the RICO statute, as the claims did not require interpretation of federal law and could rest on state-law predicates such as Georgia theft statutes. The motion to dismiss was denied as moot, and the case was returned to the Superior Court of Fulton County.

procedurepropertycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved defendant Danny Corrar, who was charged with violating the federal Travel Act and Wire Act in connection with efforts to collect a gambling debt owed to an offshore online sports betting operation for which he acted as an agent. The charges arose from Corrar's interstate travel to Georgia and phone communications with a local agent who had incurred losses on bets placed by his contacts. The court granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the Travel Act count, finding insufficient evidence of an underlying violation of Georgia's commercial gambling statute because the local agent did not receive, record, or forward bets or participate in the earnings of a gambling place. The court denied acquittal on the Wire Act count, concluding there was adequate evidence that Corrar was engaged in the business of betting or wagering through his activities facilitating the sports book.

criminal law

This case involves a dispute over long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan issued by defendant LINA to plaintiff's employer. After becoming disabled in a 2002 car accident, plaintiff received monthly benefits but later settled a related tort lawsuit for $5 million; LINA then sought to offset or reduce future benefits based on that recovery. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's, holding that federal common law incorporates the make-whole doctrine, which prevents offset until the plaintiff is fully compensated for his losses, and that the settlement did not achieve full compensation. As an alternative basis, the court found the offset barred by Georgia's anti-subrogation statute.

labor & employmentfederal power