This case involves a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and ICARA by Spanish father Felipe Jara Garcia seeking the return of his two children to Spain after their mother, Yanine Hernandez Varona, removed them to the United States. The parents had separated in Spain, where the children were born and primarily resided, and the father had initiated Spanish court proceedings for provisional measures on custody, visitation, and support before the removal. The court analyzed whether the father held rights of custody, including ne exeat rights, under Spanish law and the December 2010 Spanish court order at the time of removal. It concluded that the father possessed joint decision-making and custody rights that were breached by the removal without consent, rendering it wrongful under the Convention.
In this case, Amedisys Holding, a provider of home healthcare and hospice services, sued competitor Interim Healthcare of Atlanta and three former sales representatives who resigned to join Interim, alleging they misappropriated confidential trade secrets including patient Referral Logs and a doctor-referral Workbook. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction requiring return of the materials, a forensic audit, and barring solicitation of business using the information, based on claims including trade-secret misappropriation under Georgia law, breach of contract, and federal computer statutes. After reviewing declarations, hearing testimony, and evidence of the employees' actions in emailing or retaining the materials, the court denied the requested injunctive relief, concluding that any harm could be remedied through monetary damages rather than an injunction and that there was insufficient proof of Interim's involvement or ongoing irreparable injury.
The case involves the SEC's lawsuit against hedge fund principals Mannion and Reckles and their advisory firms, alleging they overvalued the fund's investments in World Health Alternatives after revelations of fraud at the company in 2005, sent misleading side-pocket and NAV statements to investors and prospects, and failed to disclose defaults on bridge loans and their own sales of the stock. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to adequately plead securities fraud claims under the Advisers Act and related rules. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged scienter through internal-external valuation gaps, the defendants' expressed fear of redemptions, undisclosed conflicts, and their fiduciary duties to the fund as a separate legal entity. The court also rejected arguments that the Advisers Act claims were deficient or that the fund's investors rather than the fund itself were the proper victims.
In this case, a state prisoner convicted of murder and related offenses in Georgia state court filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while his state habeas appeal remained pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice. The core reasoning was that AEDPA requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal review, the petition contained only unexhausted claims so the stay-and-abeyance procedure from Rhines v. Weber did not apply, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for not exhausting his claims first in state court.
In United States v. Cordova, defendant Juan Reynaldo Cordova moved to suppress evidence seized during March 26, 2009 searches of his home and to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, in a case arising from a Gwinnett County armed robbery investigation in which ICE agents participated due to links to an MS-13 gang probe. After prior orders resolved other motions and an evidentiary hearing on the remaining issues, the court examined whether a protective sweep of Cordova's bedroom was permissible under Buie v. United States or supported by consent. The court concluded that the sweep was not authorized because officers were positioned in the driveway approximately 20 feet from the home entrance rather than inside or at the threshold, the consent obtained was limited to an interview inside the home and did not extend to a search, and no other exceptions such as exigent circumstances were argued or met.
This case involved claims that DeKalb County and several senior officials, including its CEO, engaged in an intentional policy of racial discrimination in the Parks and Recreation department, affecting plaintiffs Bryant and Drake. After years of litigation and a jury trial, the jury found the defendants liable on the discrimination claims and awarded punitive damages. The court addressed the plaintiffs' pending motions for attorneys' fees and expenses as well as sanctions, noting that the defendants' uncoordinated and aggressive tactics—including separate counsel for each defendant, over fifty written discovery requests, fourteen separate summary judgment motions, and an unsuccessful certiorari petition—substantially prolonged and complicated the proceedings. The court applied the Johnson factors to evaluate the fee request while emphasizing that the litigation's complexity and cost stemmed directly from the defendants' chosen strategy rather than the underlying claims.