In this copyright infringement case brought by K-Beech, Inc. against multiple John Doe defendants, an anonymous defendant filed a motion to dismiss while fearing retaliation from the plaintiff, who had already contacted the defendant by letter and phone seeking payment to avoid litigation. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the anonymous filing, holding that it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires every pleading to be signed with the party's name, address, email, and telephone number. The decision rested on the strong presumption against anonymous litigation in federal courts under the case-or-controversy requirement and Rule 10(a), the lack of any qualifying basis for anonymity such as risk of physical or mental harm or highly sensitive personal matters, and the defendant's failure to correct the Rule 11 deficiency after notice.
In Hatley v. City of Charlotte, a police sergeant sued the city after being demoted from her role as Response Area Commander, which included staff sergeant insignia, back to sergeant, alleging violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution along with related contract and state law claims. The court dismissed the Contracts Clause, breach of contract, and delegated powers claims but granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability for the federal and state due process claims, finding that the elevation constituted a promotion that created a protected property interest. The core reasoning was that the city had held a formal promotion ceremony, awarded new insignia and benefits including a pay raise and take-home car, and represented the change as a promotion, distinguishing it from a mere temporary assignment and requiring notice and a hearing before demotion, which were not provided. The matter was set for trial on damages.
This case involves an African-American former warehouse supervisor suing Dole Food Company and related defendants under Title VII for alleged racial discrimination in promotion and discipline, hostile work environment, and retaliation culminating in termination. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the pro se plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence, such as affidavits or deposition excerpts, sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, as his responses consisted of conclusory allegations contradicted by his own sworn testimony. It further noted that plaintiff had not deposed the relevant decision-makers, whose perceptions determine liability in Title VII actions, despite having had the same discovery opportunities as defendants under the pretrial order and federal rules.
In David v. Alphin, participants in the Bank of America 401(k) Plan sued the bank, its corporate benefits committee, and individual committee members under ERISA, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties by favoring and selecting proprietary bank-affiliated mutual funds as investment options for the plan. The court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations after allowing plaintiffs additional discovery and multiple amendments to the complaint. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the alleged breaches occurred more than six years before the suit was filed in 2006, with the relevant funds added in the late 1990s and no genuine issue of material fact regarding concealment or later breaches that would extend the limitations period under ERISA. The decision focused on the timing of the plan's investment lineup changes and the absence of evidence supporting plaintiffs' tolling arguments.
This case involves a wrongful death claim brought by the estate of a plant manager killed in a 2000 forklift-related accident at a North Carolina concrete block facility owned by defendant Metromont Materials, LLC, and its parent companies. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' negligence or misconduct caused the death and sought damages under the North Carolina Wrongful Death Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy because the evidence showed at most ordinary negligence rather than the intentional misconduct substantially certain to cause serious injury or death required under the Woodson exception. The court also denied the plaintiff's related motions to compel further discovery, impose sanctions, and refuse summary judgment, finding that the defendants had complied with prior discovery orders.
This case involved claims by the guardian of a detainee who suffered a head injury while in custody at the Haywood County Jail, alleging that sheriff's deputies and officials failed to obtain timely medical treatment despite orders to transport him to the hospital. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It dismissed the § 1983 claims against the sheriff and lieutenant in their individual capacities and the negligence claims against the sheriff in his official capacity, but allowed the § 1983 claim against the sheriff in his official capacity and the state law claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 to proceed, finding the allegations sufficient to state claims of deliberate indifference.