James Randolph Spencer

The case involves The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. challenging Federal Election Commission regulations defining "express advocacy" and determining political committee status under the Federal Election Campaign Act, claiming they violate the First Amendment, particularly as applied to their planned advertisements criticizing Barack Obama's positions on abortion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FEC and DOJ, upholding the regulations and policy. The decision reasoned that Citizens United did not alter the relevant legal framework, and that RTAO's communications indicated a major purpose of defeating Obama's candidacy, justifying the application of political committee rules.

electionsfree speech

The case involves plaintiff John K. Goodrow alleging that defendants Friedman & MacFadyen, P.A. and attorney Johnie R. Muncy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act during the foreclosure of his home by communicating directly with him despite knowing he had counsel, making false or misleading statements about the note holders, and conducting foreclosure without proper authority. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were not debt collectors, the communications were not in connection with debt collection, and other grounds. The court denied the motion, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated viable FDCPA claims under the relevant provisions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Iheanyi Frank Chinasa, who was charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, multiple counts of mail and wire fraud, and obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly using interstate carriers and communications to fraudulently obtain replacement computer parts from Cisco Systems through an unauthorized warranty program. After a jury convicted Chinasa on most counts, he moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or a new trial under Rule 33, arguing insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy or fraud elements, lack of an overt act, erroneous jury instructions on intent and materiality, and prejudice from certain exhibits. The court denied the motion, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that the instructions adequately covered the required elements without needing additions on overt acts or other points, and that no evidentiary errors justified a new trial under the interest-of-justice standard.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Council, the defendant, charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, filed a motion in limine to exclude the government's proposed expert testimony from a latent palm print examiner and from a patrol canine handler who located the gun. The court held a hearing and denied both challenges. Regarding the palm print examiner, the court found her qualified through training and experience, and determined that the ACE-V methodology she used satisfied the reliability standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert despite critiques in the 2009 NRC report. As to the canine handler, the court ruled the testimony relevant to how the firearm was recovered and not unfairly prejudicial because the handler would not claim the dog made a definitive identification of human scent.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case concerned challenges by two non-Virginia citizens, McBurney and Hurlbert, who were denied public records under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) due to its citizens-only provision; McBurney sought child support enforcement documents from a state agency, while Hurlbert, a records retrieval business owner, requested real estate assessment records from a county. The plaintiffs argued that the restriction violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. The court granted summary judgment to the state defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion, upholding the provision. It reasoned that VFOIA serves the legitimate local purpose of promoting government transparency and accountability for Virginia citizens without economic protectionism or burdening a fundamental right under the relevant constitutional clauses.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involved a dispute over whether an Auto-Owners automobile insurance policy provided stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage of $400,000 across four vehicles or a single $100,000 limit after the plaintiff was injured in a car accident with insufficient liability coverage from the at-fault driver. The plaintiff, a resident relative of the named insureds, argued the policy either affirmatively allowed stacking or was ambiguous and thus should permit it. The court granted Auto-Owners' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, ruling that the policy's Limit of Liability section clearly and unambiguously stated the per-person limit applied as the maximum regardless of the number of vehicles or premiums, with no internal inconsistencies on the declarations pages to create ambiguity under Virginia precedent.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this bankruptcy appeal, Paramount Home Entertainment challenged the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that its claim to reclaim goods sold to Circuit City shortly before the company's 2008 Chapter 11 filing was not entitled to priority status. The District Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to the debtors, holding that Paramount had forfeited any reclamation rights under 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) by failing to take prompt action such as filing an adversary proceeding or seeking relief from the automatic stay. The court noted that the goods were sold through going-out-of-business sales and that post-2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code removed any automatic right to an administrative expense or lien when reclamation is denied. Paramount's additional arguments regarding valuation, proceeds, and discovery were deemed moot due to the forfeiture finding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves competitors PBM Products and Mead Johnson, makers of infant formula, where PBM sued Mead Johnson under the Lanham Act for false advertising, prompting Mead Johnson to file counterclaims for breach of contract from prior settlements, defamation based on a press release and lawsuit references, Lanham Act violations, and civil contempt for allegedly disclosing sealed prior litigation details. The court granted PBM summary judgment on the defamation and civil contempt counterclaims while denying it on the Lanham Act counterclaim, and denied Mead Johnson's summary judgment motions on its breach of contract, defamation, and contempt claims. The core reasoning was that the challenged statements were substantially true, the sealing order did not prohibit referencing prior case contents, and genuine factual disputes remained on the remaining claims.

business & regulatoryfree speechtorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who sued a debt collection company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act after the company contacted her about her estranged husband's credit card debt, misrepresented her liability using information from a skip trace and credit report, and pressured her into paying it. The court addressed the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and the plaintiff's oral motion to voluntarily dismiss two of the counts with prejudice. It granted the dismissal of Counts II and IV with prejudice and denied the motion as to Counts I and III, finding that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated claims regarding the improper procurement of her credit report without a permissible purpose and related misrepresentations. The reasoning centered on whether the defendant had a permissible purpose under the FCRA to obtain the report and the sufficiency of the pleadings under the applicable standards for motions to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage where Admiral Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify G4S Youth Services in a Florida state court lawsuit arising from the 2006 shooting death of employee Shanique Harris in the employer's parking lot. The central issue was whether the policy's employer's liability exclusion applied because the death arose out of and occurred in the course of Harris's employment. The court granted summary judgment to G4S, ruling that Admiral had a duty to defend because Harris had not yet begun her work duties—she was late for her shift, had not entered the facility, and was still in the parking lot when shot—meaning the exclusion did not apply under Florida law. The court declined to decide the duty to indemnify, finding it premature until the underlying case resolved its factual allegations.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves Lorillard Tobacco Company seeking a preliminary injunction against S & M Brands, Inc., for allegedly infringing on its NEWPORT trademark in advertisements for Bailey’s cigarettes. The court granted the injunction regarding two initial ads that used the stylized NEWPORT mark without clear distinction, finding a likelihood of success on trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act and potential consumer confusion. However, the court denied the injunction for the planned comparative advertisements, which prominently stated “Compare Bailey’s to our competitor Newport Cigarettes,” determining that this language sufficiently prevented likely confusion as to affiliation or origin. The decision was based on the balance of harms, public interest, and the specific elements of trademark infringement, particularly the lack of probable consumer confusion in the planned ads.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, three former WellPoint employees aged 47 to 56 alleged that the company systematically terminated older workers in Virginia through reductions in force and other means, replacing them with younger employees, in violation of the ADEA, OWBPA, FMLA, and ADA; they sought to represent a collective of similarly situated individuals and two sub-collectives related to severance waivers. The court denied the motion to dismiss the disparate impact claim under the ADEA, finding sufficient allegations of an age-based policy or practice with adverse effects. It granted the motion to dismiss the OWBPA claim for lack of standing, as the named plaintiffs did not sign the challenged waivers and thus suffered no cognizable injury under that statute, dismissing it without prejudice. The motion to strike the proposed collective definition was denied as moot, with the court directing the plaintiffs to submit a revised definition.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved adult entertainment establishments in Virginia challenging state alcohol beverage control laws and regulations that restrict licenses for venues featuring exotic dancing or similar performances, following prior court rulings on similar statutes. The court considered a motion for preliminary injunction after the state amended the laws in response to earlier injunctions and Fourth Circuit guidance on constitutional standards for such regulations. It denied the motion as to Virginia Code sections 4.1-226 and 4.1-325 plus most of ABC Regulation 3 Va. Admin. Code § 5-50-140, finding those provisions sufficiently narrowed to address overbreadth and vagueness concerns while serving interests in secondary effects. The court granted the motion and permanently enjoined sections 4.1-222(A)(1)(g), 4.1-223(3), and the phrase “reasonably separated” in the regulation, as those retained unconstitutional language from prior cases. The decision applied the four-factor preliminary injunction test, weighing harm, likelihood of success on First Amendment claims, and public interest based on precedents like Carandola II.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

This case involves a dispute between Adolf Jewelers and its insurer, Jewelers Mutual, over a claim for losses from an employee's embezzlement of jewelry and cash. The policies provided employee dishonesty coverage with limits that increased from $200,000 to $500,000 starting in the 2006-07 period, and the embezzlement spanned multiple policy years. The court granted the insurer summary judgment on the coverage issue, holding that losses must be allocated to the specific policy period in which they occurred based on the policy language limiting coverage to acts within the policy period, resulting in the lower limit applying to pre-2006 losses. It denied summary judgment on the methods used to calculate the payable loss amount, including adjustments for undocumented items and invoice sampling, as well as related issues of bad faith, finding that factual questions remained for trial.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by an architecture firm against a developer and related parties over the unauthorized modification and use of architectural plans for a townhome construction project. The plaintiff created the plans under a contract that reserved ownership and required fees for reuse, but after the project changed hands, the defendants altered the plans by hand, removed copyright notices, distributed copies to subcontractors, and used them to build the project without obtaining permission or paying additional fees. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on infringement and motion to exclude expert testimony. In its reasoning, the court applied standards for summary judgment, examined whether an implied nonexclusive license existed based on the parties' conduct and contract terms (drawing on Fourth Circuit precedent like Nelson-Salabes), considered issues of originality and fair use, and evaluated the admissibility of expert opinions on the plans' completeness and value.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In United States v. McHugh, the defendant was stopped by a Virginia state trooper on I-95 for having taillights with clear lenses on his Massachusetts-registered vehicle, leading to a consensual search that uncovered cocaine, marijuana, and pills. McHugh moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. The court initially denied the motion, viewing the stop as based on a reasonable mistake of fact about the lights' color, but on reconsideration granted it after determining the stop stemmed from a mistake of law because Virginia's vehicle equipment statutes, including requirements for approved red taillights under Va. Code § 46.2-1013, apply only to vehicles registered in the state and do not cover out-of-state vehicles like McHugh's. The core reasoning was that the trooper's incorrect belief about the legal requirements constituted an impermissible mistake of law that could not justify the Fourth Amendment seizure, and the vehicle's actual taillights complied with applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

Toolchex, Inc., an administrator of tool reimbursement plans, sued former independent contractor Patrick Trainor after he allegedly continued using Toolchex's registered trademarks to operate a similar reimbursement service for a car dealership following the end of his affiliation with the company. Toolchex claimed trademark counterfeiting, infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under federal and Virginia law, and sought a preliminary injunction to stop Trainor from using its marks or confusingly similar ones. The court granted the injunction, finding that Toolchex was likely to succeed on the merits due to evidence of unauthorized deceptive use of the marks that caused actual consumer confusion, that Toolchex faced a presumption of irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favored Toolchex, and that the public interest supported preventing trademark confusion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in a Chapter 13 proceeding involving debtor Sarah J. Morris. The debtor's residence, owned with her non-debtor husband as tenants by the entirety and subject to a second deed of trust held by UMLIC, was foreclosed upon after UMLIC obtained relief from the automatic stay but not the co-debtor stay under 11 U.S.C. § 1301. The bankruptcy court initially set aside the foreclosure but later, on reconsideration, retroactively annulled the co-debtor stay to validate the sale to Zabu Holding Company and the subsequent transfer and financing. The district court affirmed, holding that annulment was appropriate based on equitable factors including the absence of notice to good-faith purchaser Zabu and lender SunTrust, the debtor's delay in raising the co-debtor stay violation, and the lack of prejudice to the debtor. The decision balanced the purposes of the co-debtor stay against the interests of innocent third parties who relied on the foreclosure.

procedureproperty

The case involves parents suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals on behalf of their son, alleging he suffered neurological injuries from mercury in thimerosal, a preservative in the HypRho-D immune globulin administered to the mother during pregnancy to prevent hemolytic disease. The claims asserted strict liability for failing to package the product in single-dose vials without thimerosal or to test its safety, as well as negligent design and testing of the product. The court granted Bayer's motion for judgment on the pleadings in full and the Sykes' motion to amend their complaint in part, dismissing the claims under Virginia law. The core reasoning was that Virginia does not recognize strict liability in product liability cases, that the failure-to-package and failure-to-test allegations did not state viable negligence claims, and that certain proposed amendments were either futile or improperly raised.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Oren Tavory, who worked as a consultant on a Telefind project developing wireless email technology in the late 1980s, suing NTP to be named as a co-inventor on six patents for electronic mail systems and to establish copyright ownership of related source code known as the Push Software. After an earlier dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim, the court granted NTP's motion for summary judgment on the co-inventorship, copyright infringement, and remaining counts. The reasoning centered on the copyright claim being time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, the plaintiff's failure to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that the named inventors on the patents were correct, and the applicability of fair use to any reproduction of the code during the prior BlackBerry litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure