Mark Steven Davis

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiff Nielsen alleged that defendant comScore's software products and services directly and indirectly infringed five U.S. patents related to monitoring, collecting, and analyzing personal computer and internet usage data. comScore moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss certain counts of Nielsen's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, while Nielsen moved to dismiss one of comScore's counterclaims alleging infringement of a separate patent. Applying the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, along with Federal Circuit guidance on patent pleading requirements, the court examined whether the complaints contained sufficient factual allegations identifying the patents, the parties, and the accused infringing activities. The court concluded that both the amended complaint and the counterclaim met these standards by providing adequate details about the patents, ownership, and the functionality of the accused products or services. Accordingly, the court denied both motions to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a former Postal Service letter carrier who sued the Postmaster General and USPS after his employment was terminated for failing to disclose a 1986 misdemeanor conviction on his job application form, despite his claim that the conviction should have been expunged and that a background check had resulted in favorable action and a promotion. Plaintiff alleged breach of express and implied contracts based on the employment application and the agency's Employee Labor Relations Manual, as well as promissory estoppel. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the cited documents and statements did not create enforceable contractual obligations and that the facts alleged did not support an estoppel claim preventing termination.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a non-party, attorney Robert L. Vaughn, who filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against defendant Atlas IT Export Corp. Vaughn alleged that Atlas made material misrepresentations about him in filings related to a default judgment and venue change in an underlying contract dispute between Pinpoint IT Services and Atlas, as well as in related Puerto Rico proceedings and private communications. The court denied the motion, holding that Vaughn lacked standing because, as a non-party merely mentioned in the documents and not an involuntary participant or named defendant, he was not among those typically permitted to seek Rule 11 sanctions. The reasoning emphasized that Rule 11 aims to deter baseless filings by parties and participants in litigation, that extending standing here would undermine court efficiency, and that Vaughn could pursue alternative remedies such as a state-law defamation action or bar complaint.

procedure

The case involved plaintiff Bridgett Edwards's Title VII retaliation claim against her employer Murphy-Brown, alleging that after she and a coworker reported repeated sexual harassment by male migrant coworkers—including incidents of peeping through drilled holes in a shower door—their supervisor belittled their complaints, failed to investigate or discipline anyone, and reassigned Edwards to another facility while implying she should quit. Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended Count II for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the amended complaint plausibly alleged both protected activity (complaints about conditions that could reasonably be viewed as creating a hostile work environment) and an adverse employment action (reassignment and related conduct), satisfying the prima facie elements under the applicable pleading standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Sherman v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., the plaintiff sought to enjoin foreclosure on his Virginia Beach home after the loan servicer denied his application for modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, despite earlier trial payments and correspondence. The plaintiff asserted state-law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and fraud against the servicer and substitute trustee, and moved to remand the removed case to state court. The court denied remand, holding that diversity jurisdiction existed because the trustee was fraudulently joined, and dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court reasoned that no enforceable contract to modify the loan was formed, the servicer owed no tort duty in processing the modification request, and the fraud allegations failed to plead a misrepresentation or justifiable reliance.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Tattoo Art, Inc. suing defendants TAT International, LLC and Kirk Knapp for breach of a license agreement and copyright infringement related to the use of plaintiff's tattoo designs on stencils and other products. After previously granting partial summary judgment on liability, the court held a trial limited to damages and now issues findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented, including witness credibility determinations favoring the plaintiff's account of gross sales figures. The court awarded plaintiff unpaid royalties calculated from defendants' sales, along with a permanent injunction prohibiting further use or distribution of infringing materials, an order for impoundment and delivery of such materials, and certification of compliance. These remedies were grounded in the terms of the license agreement, evidence of unauthorized sales after termination, and applicable copyright law remedies.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned an insurer's action seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty under commercial general liability policies to defend or indemnify a home builder against state-court claims alleging property damage and health effects from defective Chinese drywall that emitted sulfide gases and other chemicals. The policies contained a Total Pollution Exclusion and a "Your Work" exclusion. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the insurer had a duty to defend because the pollution exclusion was ambiguous and did not clearly bar coverage for the drywall claims. The court held the indemnity question in abeyance pending resolution of the underlying lawsuit.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves an insurance company's request for a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend and indemnify a real estate developer against claims from a homeowner and others stemming from defective Chinese drywall installed in townhomes. The court granted summary judgment in part to the insurer Nationwide, ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Overlook in the underlying Edmonds state lawsuit because the pollution exclusion in the applicable policies applies to the drywall-related damages. The core reasoning relied on the broad language of the exclusion covering irritants and contaminants, supported by Virginia precedent interpreting similar clauses to encompass emissions from defective materials without finding the provision ambiguous, even when applied to non-traditional pollutants. The court held in abeyance its decision on indemnification for unsold homes lacking underlying lawsuits, citing insufficient factual development on how damages occurred.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves Builders Mutual Insurance Company filing a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Futura Group under its insurance policies with respect to claims brought by the Protos in Virginia state court over alleged defects in Chinese drywall installed in the Protos' home. The Protos moved to stay the federal action pending resolution of the underlying state litigation, which includes claims for breach of contract, negligence, and other causes of action. The court denied the motion to stay, applying the Nautilus factors and finding that the coverage dispute is separate and independent from the state court liability issues, Builders Mutual is not a party to the state action, and there is no evidence of improper forum shopping.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. and Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. against Medtronic, Inc. and related entities, alleging that Medtronic's Talent Abdominal and Thoracic Stent Graft products directly and indirectly infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,810,870 on an intraluminal stent graft. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to a prior Settlement and License Agreement containing a forum selection clause. Medtronic moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient pleading under Twombly and Iqbal standards. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the forum selection clause valid and enforceable to establish jurisdiction and that the complaint adequately alleged direct infringement, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend regarding indirect infringement claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Pamela L. Kennedy's claims against her former employer, A Touch of Patience Shared Housing, Inc., for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the defendant's alleged failure to pay her the federal minimum wage and required overtime compensation during her employment from February to July 2010. After the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, default was entered, and the court considered the plaintiff's motion for default judgment supported by affidavits detailing her hours worked, wages received, and calculations of unpaid amounts. The court granted the motion, entering judgment for the plaintiff that included back wages calculated at the statutory minimum hourly rate, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as authorized by the FLSA. The decision rested on the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint being deemed admitted by default, combined with the plaintiff's supplemental evidence establishing the hours, pay, and resulting damages. The court also addressed the plaintiff's status as a salaried employee by applying the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements where her compensation fell below statutory thresholds.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves fourteen defendants charged with piracy under the law of nations, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and firearm offenses stemming from the alleged February 2011 hijacking of the American yacht Quest on the high seas, during which four U.S. citizens were held hostage and killed. The defendants moved for an order requiring the government to preserve the Quest in its current condition so that defense counsel and experts could inspect the vessel to assess distances, angles, and other physical details relevant to the shootings. The government opposed the motion, noting that an FBI evidence response team had already processed the yacht with photos and video and that control was being transferred to the victims' family. The court granted the motion, relying on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) and its inherent authority to order preservation of evidence, directing the government to keep the vessel unaltered until May 31, 2011, to allow defense access.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Salad, fourteen defendants were charged with piracy under the law of nations, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and using a firearm during a crime of violence, stemming from the alleged hijacking of an American yacht and the deaths of four U.S. citizens. The government moved to designate the case as complex under the Speedy Trial Act and to postpone the trial from May to November 2011. The court granted the motion, finding that the case's complexity due to the number of defendants and the nature of the prosecution justified a continuance that served the ends of justice, and determined that the delay did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Hasan, an indigent defendant convicted in a Somali piracy case moved for appointment of a mitigation expert under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) to testify at sentencing on the nature and circumstances of the offense, conditions in Somalia, Somali piracy, and related deterrence factors relevant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The government opposed the request, arguing the expert services were not necessary because trial evidence already addressed the offense, the defendant could speak to his own history, and the court could assess deterrence without additional testimony. The court denied the motion, concluding that the proposed expert testimony was not necessary for adequate representation, as the PSR and trial record supplied sufficient information, the defendant had opportunity to provide personal details, and existing evidence allowed the court to consider conditions in Somalia and deterrence.

criminal law

This case involves a young student, J.S., who developed asthma and other health issues allegedly caused by mold exposure at a public elementary school in Suffolk, Virginia. The student's mother sued school officials, the principal, a maintenance employee, and the school board, claiming they concealed known mold problems and conducted fraudulent testing, violating the student's constitutional right to bodily integrity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with related state claims. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, holding that the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege an intentional deprivation of a constitutional right or a municipal policy or custom under Monell sufficient to support liability, as the conduct amounted at most to gross negligence rather than deliberate harm. The court therefore dismissed the federal claims and remanded the remaining state-law claims to the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk for further proceedings.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a breach of contract action filed by SunTrust Bank against a Virginia LLC and three individual guarantors over two commercial promissory notes. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the complaint failed to adequately allege facts establishing complete diversity of citizenship for subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, particularly because an LLC's citizenship is determined by its members rather than its state of formation or principal place of business, and because allegations of residence do not suffice for individual defendants. The court denied both the motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's request for expedited jurisdictional discovery, reasoning that the jurisdictional allegations were merely defective rather than factually incorrect, and therefore granted the plaintiff leave to amend them within seven days pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653; failure to properly amend would result in dismissal without prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Diane J. Tait was convicted after a bench trial of removing private property from federal land in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 27.61 for cutting and taking rope and a life ring from a beached fishing boat at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. On appeal to the district court, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal. The court determined that the regulation requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the removed items constituted private property, but the evidence was insufficient because the boat had been abandoned for weeks with no identified owner or security measures, and maritime presumptions against abandonment do not apply to establish this element in a criminal prosecution.

criminal lawenvironmentproperty

This case involves a Title VII lawsuit by plaintiff Bridgett Edwards against her employer Murphy-Brown, alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation arising from incidents at a Virginia hog farm between 2003 and 2008, including unwanted touching, sexual comments and images, and a peeping incident involving a drilled shower door. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that many incidents fell outside the statute of limitations or the scope of the plaintiff's EEOC charge. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, holding that the EEOC charge document could be considered and that certain acts could be evaluated as part of a single hostile work environment claim rather than solely as discrete time-barred events under precedents like National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan. The decision turned on whether the alleged conduct formed a continuing violation and whether the facts alleged supported subject matter jurisdiction and a plausible claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Guess, the defendant moved to suppress statements made to police during his arrest in a June 2010 methamphetamine sting operation involving a confidential informant, arguing violations of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda requirements. After a hearing, the court granted the motion in part, suppressing the defendant's responses to questions about his vehicle and the keys found on him. The core reasoning was that the officers' direct questioning about the white pickup truck—while the defendant was in custody and before any Miranda warnings—constituted interrogation reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information, and it did not qualify for the booking exception or other exemptions under applicable case law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved five Somali defendants charged with piracy under the law of nations, assault on a vessel, firearms offenses, and related crimes after they departed Somalia, spotted what they believed to be a merchant ship, and attacked it with rifles and an RPG, only to discover it was the USS Nicholas, a U.S. Navy frigate, leading to their capture on the high seas. The defendants filed multiple pre-trial motions, including to suppress statements, dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act as to one defendant claiming to be a minor, dismiss specific counts, change venue, address speedy trial violations, and resolve other procedural and constitutional challenges. The court reviewed the factual allegations of the April 2010 incident, the procedural history from initial indictment through superseding indictment, evidence on the defendant's age, and governing statutes, denying the motions after applying legal standards for jurisdiction, evidence, and timing.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power