Marvin J. Garbis

The case concerned a Baltimore ordinance requiring 'limited-service pregnancy centers'—organizations providing pregnancy counseling but not abortions or certain birth-control referrals—to post a conspicuous sign stating that they do not provide or refer for such services. Plaintiffs, including a Catholic-affiliated center operating rent-free on church property, sued the city to enjoin enforcement, claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their free speech claim, holding the ordinance facially invalid and unenforceable under the First Amendment. It reasoned that the government may not compel providers of pregnancy-related services to post government-drafted disclosures about abortion and birth control, as the choice of when and how to discuss those topics belongs to the provider rather than the state. The court dismissed other claims or parties on standing or mootness grounds but focused its ruling on the compelled-speech violation.

free speechreligious libertyabortion

The case involves the United States government alleging that Westvaco Corporation violated the Clean Air Act at its Luke Mill kraft pulp and paper facility by making major modifications to two power boilers during 1980s expansion projects without obtaining Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits or installing best available control technology for emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants. The court conducted the first phase of the trial to address these specific modifications and the applicability of the New Source Review program under the Clean Air Act, including the grandfathering of existing sources and the definition of modifications that trigger permitting obligations. Based on its evaluation of the evidence, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) regarding the projects, the facility's location near Class I areas, and the regulatory framework of the State Implementation Plan and federal oversight.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this bankruptcy appeal, SunTrust Bank challenged the bankruptcy court's order allowing Chapter 13 debtors, the Millards, to avoid its second-position lien on their principal residence under 11 U.S.C. § 506. The residence was valued at $599,000, which was less than the amount owed on the first lien, rendering SunTrust's lien wholly unsecured. SunTrust argued that the anti-modification provision in 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) barred avoidance of the lien, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank. The district court reviewed the legal issue de novo, noted the debtors' failure to file an appellate brief but declined to impose sanctions, and affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision by following the majority view that wholly unsecured junior liens on a primary residence may be avoided. The court distinguished Nobelman as applying to undersecured rather than wholly unsecured claims and upheld the lien avoidance conditioned on the debtors' discharge.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves plaintiff Frederick Bouchat's claim that the Baltimore Ravens and NFL infringed his copyright in the "Shield Drawing" by continuing to display images and memorabilia from the team's 1996-98 seasons featuring the "Flying B Logo" derived from his artwork. Bouchat had previously established infringement but received no damages and now seeks an injunction against these displays. The court, after a bench trial, held that the defendants' uses constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and thus do not infringe the copyright. The decision was based on the specific historical and non-commercial context of the displays, without determining broader applications.

property

This case involved a health plan administrator, MAMSI, seeking reimbursement for $62,053 in medical expenses it paid on behalf of participant Mary Do after she was injured in a car accident with uninsured motorists. Do's lawyers recovered $100,000 in settlements from insurers, retaining fees and disbursing funds while placing some in escrow, but the plan's subrogation provision required reimbursement from third-party recoveries. MAMSI brought an ERISA claim against Do to enforce the plan terms and state-law claims for conversion and tortious interference against her lawyers. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding ERISA jurisdiction over the claim against Do and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against the lawyers, which were not preempted. It granted MAMSI partial summary judgment, awarding the escrowed funds but denying it as to other traceable amounts without further evidence.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns copyright infringement claims by Frederick Bouchat against Champion Products and other downstream licensees of the Baltimore Ravens for their use of the Flying B Logo on merchandise, which a jury in a prior case (Bouchat I) found infringed Bouchat's Shield Drawing. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions on damages, including whether Bouchat could recover profits, actual damages, or statutory damages in this and related follow-on suits. The court held that Bouchat was precluded from seeking statutory damages because he had not pursued them against the primary infringers in the initial bifurcated action, and it limited recoverable profits to specific licensed merchandise revenues tied to the infringement. The reasoning relied on the Copyright Act's provisions under 17 U.S.C. § 504, the need to avoid claim-splitting across multiple lawsuits against joint infringers, and the fact that liability had already been established in Bouchat I.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a pro se plaintiff seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a Social Security Administration decision on his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court decided to grant the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, while denying the plaintiff's motions for sanctions and summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Section 405(g) permits review only after a final decision by the Commissioner following exhaustion of administrative remedies, but the Appeals Council had vacated the prior ALJ decision and remanded the matter for additional proceedings, leaving no final agency decision for the court to review.

procedurefederal powerhealthcare

The case concerned the EEOC's lawsuit on behalf of Deborah Brown, a BFI employee with Crohn's Disease, alleging that BFI terminated her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because of a belief that her condition and medication made repeated exposure to waste dangerous to her health. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, with the court reviewing whether Brown qualified as disabled under the ADA, whether she could perform the essential functions of her roles involving trash exposure and driving, and whether BFI's reliance on a physician's fitness-for-duty evaluation created a direct threat or other defense. The court applied the Fourth Circuit's prima facie test for ADA wrongful discharge claims, including whether the discharge raised an inference of discrimination, while addressing factual disputes about Brown's work performance, employer knowledge of her condition, and the adequacy of the medical evaluation. The opinion analyzed relevant ADA regulations, guidelines, and precedents on disability determinations and mitigating measures but did not reach a final ruling in the provided excerpt.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved wheelchair users and a disability advocacy nonprofit suing NationsBank under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for greater unassisted access to the public banking hall in a 1929 historic building at Ten Light Street in Baltimore. The plaintiffs challenged the bank's use of an inconvenient assisted route through non-public areas as inadequate, while the bank defended its accommodations as reasonable and sought to avoid alterations that would harm the structure's historic marble stairway and architectural features. Following a bench trial, the court applied the ADA's provisions and regulations for existing facilities (constructed before 1993), which balance accessibility requirements against the preservation of historic significance, and determined that the bank's efforts satisfied the statute's compromise standards without needing further modifications.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by Frederick Bouchat against the Baltimore Ravens and related entities, alleging that the team's "Flying B" logo was derived from a drawing he created and submitted. After a jury found liability for infringing Bouchat's Shield Drawing, the case proceeded to damages, where Bouchat sought the defendants' profits attributable to the infringement. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Bouchat could only pursue profits from licensing and selling merchandise bearing the infringing logo, but not from other revenue sources like game tickets or sponsorships unrelated to the logo's use on merchandise. The reasoning is that under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), the plaintiff must show gross revenues related to the infringement, and the defendants demonstrated that many revenue categories had no connection to the copyrighted work.

propertyprocedure

In Sanders v. FMAS Corp., plaintiff Jirri Sanders, an abstractor with asthma employed by defendant FMAS, sued after experiencing breathing difficulties from workplace bug spray and cologne, being placed on temporary removal for remedial training due to substandard accuracy ratings, declining an offer to return to work after EEOC mediation, and ultimately being terminated. The case centered on claims of disability discrimination related to her medical condition and the handling of her performance and absences. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The ruling was based on the absence of evidence supporting a viable claim of unlawful discrimination under the relevant statutes, including the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that her termination resulted from anything other than legitimate performance concerns and her own decisions regarding training and return to work.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a gun show promoter, a licensed firearms dealer, and a gun owners' advocacy group challenging a Montgomery County ordinance that prohibited the county from providing financial or in-kind support to any organization allowing the display and sale of guns at its facilities. The court held that the ordinance could not be enforced against the Ag Center (located in the City of Gaithersburg) with respect to the plaintiffs' gun shows and issued a preliminary injunction. The decision rested on Maryland's Tillie Frank law, which allows municipalities to exempt themselves from certain county legislation, combined with Gaithersburg's specific grant of authority to regulate weapons and its ordinance exempting itself from county rules on that subject, rendering the county's spending condition preempted as applied to gun sales within the city. The court noted but did not resolve separate First Amendment claims regarding speech at the shows.

gunsfree speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a motion by Discovery Communications (Channel) to exclude the expert report and testimony of Henry D. Ostberg in a dispute with Learning Network over potential consumer confusion between the parties' names and websites. Ostberg had conducted a mall-intercept survey asking screened respondents about portfolios of website pages to assess confusion with "The Learning Channel" or "TLC." The court granted the motion and excluded the report and testimony. The core reasoning was that the survey was methodologically flawed, including its use of printed portfolios that omitted key website elements like title and address bars, reliance on vague questions that failed to directly probe for confusion with TLC, and an inability to support reliable inferences about consumer perceptions from the responses obtained.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the EPA's civil action against Westvaco Corporation for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and Maryland's State Implementation Plan at its kraft pulp mill in Luke, Maryland. The government claimed that four sets of projects between 1981 and 1998 constituted modifications requiring preconstruction permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, New Source Performance Standards, and related regulations, and sought civil penalties and injunctive relief. Westvaco moved to dismiss several counts, arguing the claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The court held that violations of preconstruction permitting requirements accrue at the time of construction or modification and are not continuing violations, so claims for civil penalties accruing more than five years before the complaint were dismissed, but claims for injunctive relief were allowed to proceed as they raised factual questions.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves an investor's claims against the Ridgewood defendants, issuers of interests in a business trust formed to invest in independent power projects, arising from the purchase of shares through a broker-dealer and registered representative. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to ensure proper compliance with investor suitability standards and were liable for the broker's actions or omissions in connection with the offering. The court granted the Ridgewood defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the broker operated as an independent contractor with only limited direct contact with the defendants, that the defendants had no knowledge of any license issues involving the broker, and that the plaintiff, as an accredited investor who signed an investor questionnaire acknowledging the investment's risks and his own financial sophistication, could not establish liability or causation against the issuers.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned Microbix Biosystems' antitrust claims against BioWhittaker and Abbott Laboratories, along with a related tortious interference claim, arising from an exclusive supply agreement for human neonatal kidney cells that allegedly caused a business partner to end a partnership with Microbix. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Microbix failed to show the agreement was a substantial cause of its damages given other intervening events such as an FDA import ban. On the motion for reconsideration, the court denied relief, concluding that Microbix was rearguing prior points, attempting to introduce new evidence without justification, and had not met the burden of proving causation with the required certainty under antitrust standards. The court also declined to alter its separate order on counterclaims involving trade secrets.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arises from Superior Bank's purchase of twenty-three mortgage loans originated by Tandem National Mortgage under a 1997 Purchase Agreement (renewed in 1998), where Superior alleges Tandem and affiliated brokers, title companies, and appraisers conspired to inflate property values and falsify borrower qualifications and down payments, breaching representations and warranties that required repurchase upon request. The district court ruled on multiple motions to dismiss counts in the complaint and amended complaint without a hearing. The court denied dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim against the appraisers, finding the pleadings sufficient to show the appraisers knew lenders would rely on the appraisals for mortgage decisions and that professional guidelines supported a duty of care to third parties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a federal firearms licensee, RSM, Inc., operating as Valley Gun, which was deemed uncooperative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) for failing to respond timely to crime gun trace requests on multiple occasions in 1999. BATF issued a Demand Letter requiring RSM to submit detailed Form 4483 reports on all firearms transactions from the prior three years and on a monthly basis thereafter. RSM sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the demand exceeded BATF's authority under the Gun Control Act as amended by the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). The court held that the letter violated 18 U.S.C. § 926(a), which prohibits requiring additional records or reports beyond those specifically authorized by statute, and granted declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the demand.

gunsbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved an antitrust lawsuit brought by Microbix Biosystems against Abbott Laboratories and BioWhittaker under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Microbix alleged that after learning of its plans to develop competing generic urokinase products, Abbott entered an exclusive supply agreement with BioWhittaker to block Microbix's access to necessary HNK cells, causing it injury. The court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment, reviewing evidence of the parties' conduct, market background, and plaintiff's development efforts. It granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Microbix failed to produce sufficient specific evidence establishing that the alleged anticompetitive agreement was a material cause of its injury rather than other intervening factors. The decision emphasized requirements under Rule 56 for expert opinions and factual support to defeat summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a counterclaim by Abbott Laboratories against Microbix Biosystems alleging violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, based on claims that a former Abbott employee disclosed ten specific pieces of confidential information about urokinase production processes to Microbix, which then used the information to develop a competing product. Microbix moved for summary judgment, arguing that the information did not qualify as trade secrets because it was publicly available through expired patents, scientific publications, or industry knowledge, and that Microbix had not used the alleged secrets. The court examined each of the ten claimed secrets individually, assessing factors such as whether the details were generally known, whether Microbix actually employed the same methods, and the sufficiency of Abbott's evidence under Rule 56(e). The decision focused on the public nature of information from expired patents like the '944, '945, and '582 patents, the lack of evidence that Microbix adopted specific Abbott practices, and the requirement for specific facts rather than conclusory expert opinions to defeat summary judgment.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability