This case concerned whether Country Boys Auction and Realty, Inc. was an "insider" of debtor Joe Denning & Sons Farms under 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), which would disqualify the firm from serving as the bankruptcy estate's auctioneer. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that Country Boys was not an insider. The court reasoned that the firm did not meet any of the statutory insider categories for a partnership debtor under § 101(31)(C) and was not a non-statutory insider because Douglas Gurkins had fully resigned, transferred his ownership to his adult son, and had no financial interest or control over Country Boys for more than five years before the relevant events, despite the family relationship and minor ongoing contacts.
The case involves state inmates serving life sentences imposed between 1974 and 1978 under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-2, who claimed that accumulated good time, gain time, and merit time credits entitled them to unconditional release and that North Carolina's refusal to release them violated the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses. After the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected these claims in Jones v. Keller, the petitioners sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2241. The district court applied the deferential AEDPA standard of review to the state court's decision and concluded that it was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, the court granted the state's motions for summary judgment, dismissed the petitions, and denied evidentiary hearings and certificates of appealability.
Kimya Swann sued her former employer, Source One Staffing Solutions, alleging that it created a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and that it wrongfully discharged her in violation of North Carolina public policy in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment. Source One moved for summary judgment, which the court granted after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Swann. The court concluded that the incidents described were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. The court also held that Swann could not use her opposition memorandum to recharacterize her wrongful-discharge claim and that her original claim failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the case was closed.
In Smith v. Atkins, the plaintiffs (the mother and minor children of inmate Demittarus Burden) sued Bertie and Martin County sheriffs, jail administrators, and Southern Health Partners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Burden committed suicide in the Bertie-Martin Regional Jail in 2007. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the remaining federal claims after striking the plaintiffs' expert disclosure. The core reasoning was that no defendant acted with deliberate indifference to a known suicide risk, as Burden's intake screening showed no suicidal ideation and he had no history of self-harm known to jail staff; without an underlying constitutional violation, claims against the municipalities and healthcare provider for policies or failure to train also failed.
In Myers v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., the plaintiff sued debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, claiming they violated the statute and North Carolina law by not promptly notifying the Cumberland County Clerk of Court about partial payments made on a confessed judgment, which allegedly caused inaccurate docket and credit information. After the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the defendants pursued their pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney for filing a complaint that misrepresented the relevant statute, lacked factual and legal basis, and was brought for an improper purpose. The court granted the sanctions motion, concluding that the attorney violated Rule 11(b) by failing to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law before filing, as the claims had no chance of success under existing precedent and the attorney had misrepresented N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-239(c). As a result, the court admonished the attorney and ordered her to pay $250 into the court as a deterrent sanction, while declining to award fees or costs to the defendants due to lack of evidence and absence of unusual circumstances.
In Bufford v. Embarq Management Corporation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to hire her because of her race and sought relief under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII and § 1981 claims, finding them legally and factually sufficient under the standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claim, holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2 does not create a private right of action and that the related tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy applies only to employees who have been discharged, not to job applicants.
_verso_James_3%2C_3%E2%80%939.jpg?width=900)