Robert James Conrad jr

The case involved U.S. Airways seeking a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) for allegedly conducting a work slowdown via a safety campaign to pressure the airline during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, in violation of the status quo requirements under the Railway Labor Act. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that evidence including statistical increases in flight delays, fatigue calls, maintenance write-ups, and training delays by East pilots beginning in May 2011 was linked to union communications and actions. The core reasoning was that these tactics constituted unlawful self-help rather than genuine safety efforts, as they were designed to disrupt operations and gain leverage in contract talks, while West pilots' performance remained consistent with historical averages.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves Mohammed Hossein Saeedi, an Iranian national granted asylum in the United States, appealing USCIS's denial of his application to adjust status to permanent resident. USCIS had determined he was inadmissible based on a willful misrepresentation of material fact when obtaining a B-2 tourist visa in 1999. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, reversed the agency's determination, and remanded the matter for USCIS to reopen and adjudicate the application under the appropriate legal standard within 45 days. The court's reasoning centered on the conclusion that the agency's finding of inadmissibility was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

immigration

The case involved homeowners Ilona Aylward and Valentina Krasnova suing FEMA over disputed payments under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy for damages from two separate floods at their North Carolina property. Plaintiffs alleged improper deductions from the second flood claim and sought additional compensation beyond what was already paid. The court converted the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment due to extensive discovery and extrinsic evidence. It granted summary judgment to FEMA on the first flood claim because a contractor had released further payments via settlement, and on the second flood claim because plaintiffs failed to submit a required second proof of loss within the policy deadline. The reasoning emphasized strict compliance with NFIP policy terms, including timely proof-of-loss filings, as mandated by federal regulations.

federal powerproperty

The case involved a former Duke Energy line technician seeking continued long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored ERISA plan after he stopped working in 2001 due to chronic pain from prior injuries and surgeries. Aetna initially approved benefits for 24 months under the plan's "usual occupation" definition but later denied ongoing benefits, finding that the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of other occupations for which he was reasonably suited by education, experience, or training. The court granted summary judgment to Aetna and dismissed the case, holding that the denial was the product of a deliberate, principled reasoning process supported by substantial evidence from medical records and reviews, and that the administrator's decision could not be overturned merely because the court might have reached a different conclusion.

labor & employment

Donald Webb sued his former employer K.R. Drenth Trucking after being fired six days following a tractor-trailer rollover, claiming the termination was retaliation for seeking workers' compensation benefits under North Carolina's Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act and that statements to prospective employers were defamatory. The company moved for summary judgment, asserting Webb was discharged for causing a preventable accident by speeding and that the statements were true. The court denied the motion, concluding that disputed facts existed regarding the accident's cause, the company's motivation for termination, and the truth of the statements made about Webb.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, Michele Russell, a longtime sales representative for BSN Medical, alleged that she experienced sexual harassment from colleague Ken Krull during a 2007 company dinner and subsequent interactions, and that Krull retaliated against her after she complained, including through negative performance reviews and threats after he became her supervisor in 2008; she also claimed breach of contract regarding compensation. The court granted summary judgment to BSN on the sexual harassment claim, finding insufficient evidence of a severe or pervasive hostile work environment that affected her employment, and on the breach of contract claim due to lack of proof regarding compensation or good faith duties. However, the court denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim, determining that Russell presented enough evidence of protected complaints followed by adverse actions to allow a jury to decide whether retaliation occurred. The decision focused on the elements required for each claim under federal employment law and the summary judgment standard.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a dispute over inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 7,193,644, an audio-video communication system. Plaintiffs Carter and Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment that defendant Ozoeneh is neither an inventor nor owner of the patented technology. Ozoeneh countered with evidence including his own testimony claiming contributions to specific features, a prototype drawing he faxed to the patent attorney, and other documents suggesting joint development efforts after the parties formed a company together. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Ozoeneh's evidence created genuine issues of material fact about the nature and timing of any inventive contributions that must be resolved at trial rather than on the papers.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a defendant charged with RICO conspiracy and related murders in aid of the MS-13 gang, facing potential capital punishment under the Federal Death Penalty Act. The defendant filed motions to strike various non-statutory aggravating factors from the government's notice, including gang-motivated killing, callous disregard, uncharged murders and violence, and future dangerousness, arguing they were unauthorized or otherwise improper. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike non-statutory aggravating factors, specifically allowing some factors like future dangerousness and gang membership while limiting others, and denied the remaining motions. The reasoning centered on the FDPA's broad allowance for relevant non-statutory factors that are not unfairly duplicative or prejudicial, ensuring the jury receives information to aid in sentencing decisions without violating constitutional standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In Couick v. Wyeth, Inc., plaintiff Mary Cleo Couick sued name-brand drug manufacturers Wyeth and Schwarz after developing tardive dyskinesia allegedly from taking generic metoclopramide, claiming the defendants failed to adequately warn physicians about the drug's risks even though she ingested only generic versions not made or sold by them. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Wyeth and Schwarz. The core reasoning was that North Carolina product liability law does not permit holding name-brand manufacturers liable for injuries from a generic competitor's product, following the precedent in Stoddard v. Wyeth and the Fourth Circuit's analysis in Foster v. American Home Products that such liability would improperly extend foreseeability and duty beyond manufacturers who had no control over the generic drug.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved petitioner Marcus Seay seeking to quash an IRS summons issued to Bank of America for his bank records as part of an investigation into his federal income tax liabilities for 1999, 2000, and 2002. The court denied the motion to quash, granted the government's motion to dismiss, and enforced the summons. The reasoning was that under 26 U.S.C. § 7602(b), the IRS can issue summonses to inquire into any offense connected with tax administration as long as the case has not been referred to the Justice Department, which had not occurred here, allowing both civil and criminal investigations.

taxescriminal lawfederal power

The case concerned retired Gastonia police officers who sued the city after the supplementary pension fund created by state legislation in 1955 ran out of money in 2005, seeking to enforce claimed rights to ongoing supplemental retirement benefits. The court denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and granted the city's, holding that the officers had no contractual or constitutional entitlement to benefits once funds were depleted. The core reasoning was that the 1959 amendment to the authorizing act expressly made payments contingent on available funds—a condition retained in later versions—including for vested retirees, and that the city had no legal duty to provide additional funding to prevent depletion.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a lawsuit filed in North Carolina state court by UMLIC Consolidated and its subsidiary against Spectrum Financial Services for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence arising from Spectrum's administration of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) under a 1999 services agreement. The dispute centers on improper stock allocations discovered during an IRS audit, leading to corrective actions under a closing agreement. After the defendant removed the action to federal court, the plaintiffs moved to remand it back to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the remand, finding that removal was improper, and the district court adopted this recommendation in full after no objections were filed, ordering the case remanded to Mecklenburg County Superior Court while denying the plaintiffs' request for costs and fees.

procedurebusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involves a motion to dismiss a state-law civil conspiracy claim brought by American Housecall Physicians, Inc. (AHP) against two individuals associated with Olympus Managed Health Care, Inc., arising from allegations that the individuals conspired to block a proposed merger to preserve their personal ownership interests. The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation and addressed objections regarding application of the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. It affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss Count IX, holding that the pleadings sufficiently alleged an exception to the doctrine based on the defendants’ independent personal stake. The court reasoned that the complaint, read in its entirety and incorporating referenced documents such as a letter of intent, plausibly showed the defendants would benefit by avoiding dilution of their shares through the merger. The decision applied federal pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly/Iqbal to find the claim facially plausible.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned disputes arising from petroleum supply and branding contracts between Motiva (a Shell joint venture) and RTP, a wholesaler and retailer, under which RTP sold gasoline using Shell trademarks. Motiva alleged that RTP had commingled Shell-branded gasoline with non-Shell products and continued misbranding after a 2004 settlement agreement, prompting Motiva to terminate the franchise relationship and related agreements in 2006. RTP contested aspects of the termination and related claims, leading to cross-motions for partial summary judgment on issues including breach of contract and trademark matters, plus a motion to strike certain evidence. The court reviewed the contracts, testing data from Authentix, and procedural history, then granted in part and denied in part both summary judgment motions while denying the motion to strike, sending remaining issues including damages to trial.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by a parent against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and its law enforcement department, alleging that school and law enforcement officials failed to report prior allegations of misconduct by a teacher, Defendant Grubbs, who later sexually abused the plaintiff's minor child. The claims against the law enforcement defendants included negligent performance of duties and negligent supervision and retention, along with related federal civil rights and state constitutional claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Law Enforcement Department, Gemini Insurance Company, Pearson, and Welborn. It reasoned that the Law Enforcement Department was not a suable entity separate from the Board, that the defendants were not Grubbs' employer for purposes of a negligent supervision claim, and that Pearson and Welborn were protected by public official immunity because the complaint alleged only negligence without facts showing malice or actions outside their duties.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved a plaintiff suing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Law Enforcement Division, its officers Pearson and Welborn, and insurer Gemini Insurance Company for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision and retention, based on allegations that the officers failed to report a teacher's inappropriate contact with students at Bradley Middle School. The court reviewed a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims against the law enforcement defendants. It held that the official-capacity NIED claim was barred by the public duty doctrine because the officers' general investigative duties did not create a special relationship with the plaintiff student, distinguishing it from cases involving day-to-day school presence. The court also dismissed the remaining claims, including those against the officers individually and the insurer, after adopting the factual findings and applying de novo review under Rule 12(b)(6) standards.

torts & liability

The case involved a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his mandatory life sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base. Petitioner claimed his attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him about the life sentence and for not challenging the two prior felony drug convictions used to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851. The court dismissed the motion after reviewing the record, finding that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary based on the Rule 11 hearing and that counsel's performance was not deficient because the prior convictions qualified as felonies punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. The court also denied the related motions for counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

criminal lawprocedure

MD Products, a North Carolina golf retailer, sued Callaway Golf Sales Company after Callaway implemented its New Product Introduction Policy (NPIP) restricting sales of new products to full-price retailers and prohibiting discounting, internet sales, and certain advertising practices. The plaintiff alleged violations of North Carolina antitrust statutes (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 and § 75-1.1(a)) through price-fixing and restraint of trade, as well as tortious interference with prospective contracts. The court granted Callaway's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It held that the NPIP constituted unilateral conduct by Callaway rather than any concerted action or agreement required for an antitrust violation under the statute, which is modeled on the Sherman Act. The court further found no evidence of malice or interference with specific contracts to support the remaining claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved L.B. Plastics suing Amerimax for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 6,463,700 on a composite gutter guard featuring a PVC-coated mesh layer attached to a perforated guard panel by a continuous heat or ultrasonic weld. The court granted Amerimax's motion for summary judgment and denied L.B. Plastics' cross-motion, finding that Amerimax's competing product, which bonds the layers using hot-melt adhesive rather than melting the materials together, did not literally infringe the patent claims requiring welding. The court further held that statements made during patent prosecution to distinguish prior art created prosecution history estoppel, barring L.B. Plastics from relying on the doctrine of equivalents to cover adhesive attachment. Because these rulings resolved the infringement issue, the court did not reach Amerimax's separate challenge to the patent's validity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Blis Day Spa and its owner Tami Curtin sued Hartford Insurance Group after a fire destroyed their business premises, alleging breach of contract and related claims for the insurer's failure to pay the full amount claimed under a business insurance policy covering business personal property, income loss, and extra expenses. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiffs had offered evidence of damages with reasonable certainty, and on the claim that Curtin was an intended beneficiary of the policy. However, the court granted summary judgment on the insurance bad faith, unfair and deceptive trade practices, punitive damages, and consequential damages claims because the plaintiffs failed to show that Hartford recognized the claims as valid yet refused payment in bad faith, or that the parties contemplated consequential damages at the time of contracting.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityproperty