Falcon Black Hawkins jr

The case involved a dispute between former Lincoln-Mercury dealer Hyman and Ford Motor Co. over the validity of a 1996 general release Hyman signed upon termination of his dealership agreement, with Hyman seeking a declaratory judgment that the release was void due to duress along with damages for alleged violations of the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act. The court converted Ford's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and considered whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the release's enforceability. It held that the release was valid and enforceable, as Ford's conditioning of parts-return privileges on the release did not constitute duress under South Carolina law, given Ford's contractual rights and the limited consequences of non-execution. The court further noted that any challenge to the release came too late to support rescission.

business & regulatory

The case involved former Food Lion employees Rickey Bryant, Stephen Bannister, Scottie Philbeck, and their families suing the company under ERISA Section 510 for alleged discriminatory terminations intended to prevent vesting in the Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, along with claims for COBRA health insurance continuation coverage and statutory penalties for inadequate notices. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants, concluding that the terminations were not motivated by an intent to interfere with benefits and that the COBRA-related claims failed due to lack of qualifying events, improper classification of terminations, or untimeliness. The reasoning centered on statistical evidence showing that compliant employees typically vest, the absence of incentives or patterns linking supervisors to benefit forfeitures, constructive notice of legal requirements to the plaintiffs, and the irrelevance of certain witness testimony from non-similarly situated individuals.

labor & employment

This products liability case involved claims that a defective lift-gate latch on a 1985 Dodge Caravan minivan caused it to open during a 1994 rollover accident, ejecting and killing the plaintiff's son. The jury found for the plaintiff on theories including strict liability and negligent design, awarding $12.5 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages. Chrysler moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence on negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages. The court denied the motion in relevant part, holding that Chrysler had failed to preserve certain arguments by not raising them in its Rule 50(a) motion at trial and that the evidence supported findings of reliance, proximate cause, and Chrysler's knowledge of the defect's dangers.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute between Figgie International, a manufacturer of bottle-labeling equipment based in South Carolina, and Destileria Serralles, a Puerto Rico-based rum bottler, after equipment supplied under the agreement failed to perform as expected. The defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico or, alternatively, to dismiss the action for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). The court denied both requests, holding that venue was proper in South Carolina because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim—including contract negotiations, engineering, manufacturing, and shipping—occurred there. The court further determined that the defendant had not met its burden of showing that transfer to Puerto Rico would better serve the convenience of parties and witnesses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves consolidated diversity and federal question suits by three utility companies (SCE&G, Duke Power, and CP&L) against Westinghouse for damages arising from corrosion problems in Nuclear Steam Supply Systems purchased for nuclear power plants under contracts from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Plaintiffs alleged fraud in the inducement, negligent design and manufacture, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and warranty, deceptive trade practices, and civil RICO violations based on alleged misrepresentations about the systems' durability. On Westinghouse's Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation and design claims, certain RICO counts tied to a nuclear project enterprise, and other specified counts across the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, while denying dismissal as to the remaining claims such as fraud inducement. The rulings applied the standard of accepting all allegations as true and drawing inferences in plaintiffs' favor, with some contract-specific analysis regarding warranty expiration and tolling agreements.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from foundation damage at a steel plant caused by the expansive properties of steel slag used as backfill material under scales, a warehouse, and an oxygen separation plant, leading to negligence and warranty claims by Georgetown Steel Corporation (GSC) against testing firm PTL and engineering firm Law, as well as related claims by Union Carbide. On remand from the Fourth Circuit, the court determined that Law was negligent and breached its warranty to GSC by approving the slag without testing its suitability, awarding GSC $50,000 in damages subject to the contractual limitation of liability. The court further held that Law had no liability to Carbide for negligence or breach of implied or express warranty because no privity existed between them and the agency relationship between GSC and Carbide did not apply.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case arose from Texas investors who lost over $550,000 after relying on an audit letter issued by PW-Bahamas regarding a company whose financial statements were falsified, leading to the disappearance of funds deposited in a South Carolina bank. The court addressed motions concerning personal jurisdiction over the Bahamian accounting partnership, diversity of citizenship issues involving the U.S. partnership, and a request to amend the complaint by adding South Carolina residents from the U.S. firm. It granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend to include those South Carolina partners, but dismissed PW-Bahamas for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts with the forum and dismissed the added partners for failure to state a claim, finding no basis for partnership by estoppel or vicarious liability linking the U.S. partners to the audit or transaction.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over a U.S. Navy contract (Job Order No. 115) for repairs to the USS Santa Barbara, under which Metal Trades, Inc. encountered unexpected asbestos in insulation and lagging that required special handling and disposal under federal law. The contractor sought contract price adjustment under 10 U.S.C. § 7311, which requires the Navy to identify and quantify hazardous wastes in naval vessel repair contracts and to renegotiate if different wastes are discovered. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found that asbestos qualified as a hazardous waste that the Navy had failed to quantify but denied relief because Standard Item 009-10 stated that all insulation should be treated as asbestos. On appeal, the court held that the statute imposes a mandatory duty to renegotiate that overrides inconsistent contract provisions and that the standard item did not satisfy the law's requirements for positive identification and quantification, entitling the contractor to renegotiation.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

The case involved plaintiff Long's state court lawsuit against Lockheed and its physician for libel, slander, breach of an employment contract, constructive discharge, and civil conspiracy arising from his reassignment and termination after 24 years of employment. Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the claims were preempted by ERISA because they implicated pension benefits. The district court first ruled that a magistrate judge lacks authority to order a remand, treating the magistrate's order instead as a report and recommendation subject to de novo review. Upon that review, the court granted remand, holding that the claims did not "relate to" an ERISA plan because liability turned on the existence of a material change in job duties and contract terms rather than on any pension benefits themselves.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

In this Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the debtors sought court approval to continue pre-petition personnel policies providing vacation, sick leave, holidays, and severance pay (calculated as two weeks' pay after 12 months, or one week per year up to 12 weeks) to employees at all levels. The court granted the motion and approved the policies, finding them to be in the ordinary course of business. It reasoned that severance pay compensates for economic disruption from termination, with the consideration supplied by post-petition employee service that maintains operations and morale during reorganization, following the Second Circuit's approach over conflicting authority from other circuits.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), acting as conservator for a failed savings bank that owns shares in debtor companies already in bankruptcy, seeking to exercise its shareholder rights to elect new directors and potentially withdraw the debtors from bankruptcy protection to liquidate assets. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction preventing such actions, and RTC now moves to stay that injunction. The court denied the stay, reasoning that while RTC can sell its shares, it cannot use shareholder powers to interfere with the bankruptcy reorganization process in a way that harms other creditors, as the bankruptcy court has authority to suspend those rights to prevent abuse and irreparable harm. The decision was based on findings that current management is best positioned to preserve assets and that the stay factors, including likelihood of success on merits and public interest in bankruptcy integrity, favored maintaining the injunction.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc. concerns ERISA claims by former Food Lion employees against the company and its officers regarding the employer-funded profit sharing plan. Plaintiffs challenged the plan's change from a 5-to-15 year graduated vesting schedule to a 5-year cliff vesting schedule and the reallocation of forfeited non-vested amounts to remaining participants. The court considered defendants' motions for partial summary judgment and denial of class certification, as well as plaintiffs' motion to set aside a magistrate judge's order. The core reasoning centered on the distinction that decisions to amend plan terms like vesting schedules are settlor functions not subject to ERISA fiduciary duties, while plan administration by fiduciaries is.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who purchased a used car from a dealership and later discovered a faulty odometer that did not accurately reflect the vehicle's mileage; she sued both the corporate dealership and its individual owner for common law fraud, violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, the federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, and related state dealer regulations. The court addressed the individual defendant's motion for summary judgment, noting that no federal claim had been asserted against him personally and that the parties lacked diversity. Because the action had been filed before the December 1, 1990 effective date of the Judicial Improvements Act (which created supplemental jurisdiction over pendent-party claims), and because the state-law issues against the individual were uniquely matters for state courts, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction and dismissed all claims against the individual defendant without prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendants Benjamin Gordon and Larry Blanding, who were convicted of Hobbs Act violations for accepting payments in exchange for supporting a pari-mutuel betting bill in the South Carolina Legislature as part of an FBI sting operation known as Operation Lost Trust. The defendants moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, raising issues including jury contamination, a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, denial of severance, lengthy jury deliberations, undisclosed information about the witness's plea deal, credibility concerns with the witness's testimony, and an allegedly erroneous jury instruction on the need for a quid pro quo after the Supreme Court's decision in McCormick v. United States. The court denied the motions, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdicts under the applicable standard of review, the indictment properly charged a quid pro quo, any error in the jury charge was harmless, and the remaining grounds did not warrant a new trial or acquittal.

criminal lawelectionsfederal powerprocedure

This case involved post-trial motions by defendant Paul Derrick, who was convicted by a jury of two Hobbs Act violations arising from a bribery scheme in 'Operation Lost Trust' concerning proposed pari-mutuel betting legislation. The defendant sought judgment of acquittal or a new trial on multiple grounds, including insufficient proof of an interstate commerce nexus, failure to show inducement of payments, issues with conspiracy charges, and an erroneous jury instruction regarding the need for a quid pro quo under the then-recent Supreme Court decision in McCormick v. United States. The court denied both motions, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict, that potential effects on commerce sufficed for Hobbs Act jurisdiction even in cases of attempt or conspiracy involving fictitious entities, and that any instructional error was harmless given the record establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved a dispute between Palmetto Federal Savings Bank and its title insurer, Industrial Valley Title Insurance Company, after undisclosed federal and state tax liens on a mortgaged property led the bank to pay over $75,000 to the IRS to protect its priority position and prevent a foreclosure sale. The bank sued for breach of the title policy after the insurer refused to address the claim or remove the liens, and the insurer moved to set aside an entry of default. The court denied the motion, finding the insurer had actual notice of the liens at closing, exhibited bad faith by prioritizing its own recoupment efforts over the policyholder's rights, and offered insufficient justification tied to internal reorganization. It awarded the bank compensatory damages including the lien payments plus interest and state lien amounts, $100,000 in punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case arose from a 1986 South Carolina auto accident in which plaintiff Kimberly Robinson suffered severe brain injuries, leading her parents to sue the driver, the state highway department, a road contractor, and Ford Motor Company in state court. After settling with the other defendants in 1989, which created complete diversity, Ford removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, but the plaintiffs moved to remand on timeliness grounds. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and remanded the action to state court, holding that the one-year removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) began when the suit commenced in 1986 under state law and was not restarted by an earlier Rule 40(c)(3) order striking the case from the active calendar. The opinion reasoned that removal statutes must be strictly construed, that restoring a case under the state rule does not equate to commencing a new action, and that the congressional purpose of the one-year cap was to limit federal diversity jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power

This case involved property owners who sued the South Carolina Coastal Council after the Beachfront Management Act prevented them from building on their oceanfront land, claiming a violation of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The court had previously determined that the act constituted a taking, and this order addresses the appropriate remedy. Due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the state defendants cannot be held liable for monetary damages, including lost value, interest, or taxes paid; instead, the only available relief is prospective injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the building prohibition against the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against states, and pendant state law claims for compensation also could not overcome this immunity.

propertyfederal powerenvironmentprocedure

This case involved claims by Raco Car Wash Systems, Inc. against defendants including Galesburg Manufacturing Company for trademark infringement of the phrases 'NO SPOT' and 'NO SPOT RINSE,' trade dress infringement based on the design of automatic car wash equipment, unfair trade practices, and copyright infringement related to a computer program used in the equipment. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of Raco's trademark. After a bench trial on liability, the court found that the phrases and trade dress lacked secondary meaning among consumers or purchasers, precluding trademark and trade dress protection, but determined that Raco owned a valid copyright in the software that had been infringed. The court granted a partial amendment to its findings on these issues and denied further motions to alter the judgment.

business & regulatory

This case involved Procter & Gamble (P&G) suing Kimberly-Clark (K-C) for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,610,678 on the use of superabsorbent materials in thin disposable diapers, which P&G claimed K-C copied in its Huggies Supertrim product. K-C denied infringement and counterclaimed that the patent was invalid due to anticipation by prior art, obviousness, and inequitable conduct before the USPTO. Following a bench trial with extensive evidence, the court found that P&G had submitted a false affidavit to the Patent Office with intent to deceive regarding comparative testing of diaper structures. The court therefore declared the patent unenforceable, rendering the issues of infringement, anticipation, and obviousness moot.

business & regulatory