Terry L. Wooten

In Fisher v. Pelstring, plaintiffs William and Silbray Fisher brought medical malpractice claims against treating physician Dr. Mark Pelstring and various product liability, warranty, negligence, and fraud claims against drug manufacturers, alleging that Mr. Fisher's long-term use of metoclopramide caused him to develop Tardive Dyskinesia. After granting summary judgment to brand-name manufacturers Wyeth and Schwarz, the court considered PLIVA's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against it as a generic manufacturer on federal preemption grounds, along with related summary judgment and expert motions. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, which addressed preemption of state-law failure-to-warn claims involving generic drugs due to federal labeling requirements that prevent unilateral changes by generic makers, the court directed and reviewed supplemental briefing from the parties on the preemption issue.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

Mary Kay Inc., a cosmetics manufacturer, sued Leslie Ayres for selling Mary Kay products at flea markets in violation of an Independent Beauty Consultant agreement, alleging claims including trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act along with state law claims. Ayres failed to respond to the complaint or motions, leading to entry of default. The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted default judgment on the Lanham Act claims for willful trademark infringement, awarded $16,078 in attorneys' fees and $593.30 in costs, and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Ayres from using Mary Kay's trademarks or selling its products in ways that suggest affiliation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a securities fraud claim brought by a shareholder retirement system against Sonoco Products Co. and two executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff alleged that the company made material misrepresentations and omissions by failing to disclose price concessions to customers and the loss of a major account in its flexible packaging division, which artificially inflated the stock price during the class period from February to September 2007. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, loss causation, or damages, and also sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert on those elements; the plaintiff filed counter-motions to exclude defense experts. The court denied all motions, holding that the plaintiff's expert testimony created genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on each contested element of the claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved J & J Sports Productions, Inc., which held exclusive rights to broadcast a boxing event, suing Brazilian Paradise, LLC and its principal for exhibiting the event at their establishment without obtaining a license. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered default against them. The magistrate judge recommended granting default judgment for a willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, awarding $20,000 in damages plus costs and attorneys' fees. The district court adopted the recommendation in the absence of objections, entering judgment for a total of $22,688.66 against the defendants jointly and severally.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Auto Owners Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its businessowners policy issued to Personal Touch Med Spa does not provide coverage for claims brought by former employees in an underlying state court lawsuit. The underlying claims include wrongful termination tied to alleged sexual harassment and battery as conditions of employment, battery, defamation, breach of contract, and false imprisonment. The court considered the insurer's motion for summary judgment asserting no coverage due to policy exclusions such as the Employment Related Practices Exclusion and Employer's Liability Exclusion, alongside the insured's motions to dismiss or stay the action pending the state court proceedings. The court denied relief on summary judgment at this stage, reasoning that the allegations in the underlying complaint do not clearly establish that the claims fall within the exclusions or that they arose out of and in the course of employment, leaving open the possibility of coverage under the policy terms or endorsements.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., which held exclusive commercial distribution rights to a pay-per-view Ultimate Fighting Championship broadcast, suing Scott's End Zone, Inc. (doing business as Jimmagan’s) and its principal Scott Sheedy for airing the event at their bar without obtaining the required license. The complaint alleged violations of federal law under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and § 553, along with a state conversion claim. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered default against them and, following a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court found the defendants liable for a willful violation of § 605 and awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in statutory and enhanced damages plus $2,904.99 in attorneys’ fees and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable. The decision adopted the magistrate's findings in the absence of any objections and based on the record of the unauthorized broadcast.

business & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Calvin Collins suing his insurer Auto-Owners for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay uninsured motorist benefits after a 2002 accident with an uninsured driver; the insurer had offered $100,000 on a $1.5 million policy during the underlying liability litigation, which ended in a defense verdict for the driver. The district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that bad faith liability must be judged by the evidence available to the insurer at the time of its claim handling or the filing of the suit, that the insurer had a reasonable basis to dispute the claim's value based on the information then known, and that the subsequent defense verdict provided further support for the existence of a reasonable dispute over valuation, without altering the outcome even if not considered.

torts & liability

South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc., a nonprofit pro-life organization, sued members of the South Carolina Ethics Commission seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging provisions of the state Ethics Act that regulated the distribution of voter guides detailing candidates' positions on pro-life issues. The plaintiff planned to spend funds on direct-mail voter guides before elections and sought advisory opinions from the Commission on compliance with disclosure and committee registration requirements. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in part, holding that the statutory definition of "committee" in S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-1300(6) is facially invalid because it is unconstitutionally overbroad. The decision rested on the conclusion that the definition swept too broadly in regulating speech and association related to election-related communications.

electionsfree speech

This case involved a dispute between the City of Myrtle Beach and its former insurer, United National Insurance Company, over coverage for approximately $637,000 in defense costs incurred in a 2003 NAACP lawsuit alleging that the city’s differing traffic patterns during two annual motorcycle rallies (Harley Week and Bikefest) violated civil rights. The city sued for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer paid some amounts but disputed others, citing a $75,000 self-insured retention and policy exclusions related to injunctive relief. The court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the policy covered expenses tied to claims for prospective injunctive relief and whether the insurer’s partial denial and delayed payments were reasonable under South Carolina law.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 2007 rollover accident in North Carolina involving a Ford E350 van with retread tires supplied by Snow Tire, in which passengers were ejected and one died. Plaintiffs asserted multiple claims against Ford and Snow Tire, including strict products liability, negligent design and failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, misrepresentation, and fraud. The court granted Ford's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice, holding that North Carolina's statute of repose for products liability actions barred the claims because the van had been sold in 1991 and the repose period had long expired by the time of the accident. The court also granted Snow Tire's motion to transfer venue to the District of South Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, finding that the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and that the district had personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

AVX Corporation moved for summary judgment to dismiss five counterclaims—negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, nuisance, and trespass—filed by Horry Land Company after Horry Land alleged that chemical contamination from AVX's nearby manufacturing facility had diminished the value of its adjacent real estate by over five million dollars. The claims arose from Horry Land's discovery of elevated TCE levels in groundwater on part of its property following a Phase II environmental study, which it attributed to AVX's prior use and storage of the solvent. The court applied the summary judgment standard under Rule 56 and reviewed case law holding that recovery for stigma damages or diminished property value in nuisance, trespass, and similar tort actions generally requires proof that the defendant's hazardous substances physically invaded or damaged the plaintiff's land. It concluded that Horry Land had not produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the element of physical contamination or injury necessary to support its counterclaims.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff William L. McMillan sued the Pee Dee Regional Airport Commission after his 2007 termination from the position of Assistant Director/Marketing Director, alleging violations of due process based on a claimed property interest in continued employment and breach of contract. The plaintiff had signed an explicit at-will employment agreement in 2003 that stated his employment was at the pleasure of the Airport Director and could be terminated at any time with or without cause or notice, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the employer's personnel policies that included a grievance procedure. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contract established at-will status and that the plaintiff had no protected interest in his job. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims, holding that the clear contract language created an at-will relationship under South Carolina law, that the personnel policies did not alter that status, and that no due process or contract rights were implicated by the termination without a hearing.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action asserting numerous federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, RICO, and others, along with state law claims including wrongful death, medical malpractice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from child welfare, adoption, and termination of parental rights proceedings involving DSS and related medical and legal matters. The district court, conducting a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and plaintiffs' objections, accepted the recommendation to grant the remaining defendants' motions for summary judgment on all federal causes of action. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed the case in full. The core reasoning followed the magistrate's analysis that the federal claims were without merit or barred by immunity or other defenses, leaving no basis for retaining the state claims.

civil rightsfamily lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a white student in the Latta School District in South Carolina who sued school principals and the school board after being repeatedly told to remove or cover clothing displaying the Confederate flag, claiming violations of her First Amendment free speech rights, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, and related state constitutional claims. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining claims. The court reasoned that the schools' dress codes were reasonably applied to prevent disruption based on the history of racial tension and past incidents at the schools, that the policies were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that they satisfied the standards set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines and related precedents allowing viewpoint-neutral restrictions on student expression.

free speechcivil rights

This case involves a product liability claim by Marcus Ervin against Continental Conveyor and Equipment Company after Ervin lost his arm in an accident involving an incline conveyor system manufactured by the defendant and installed at a USDA facility. The defendant moved for summary judgment on substantive product liability issues and on the basis of South Carolina’s statute of repose for improvements to real estate. The court denied both motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the conveyor system was defective as originally sold due to the lack of a safety-interlocked access point, and determining that the statute of repose did not bar the claims.

torts & liability

The case was a declaratory judgment action brought by three minors injured in a 2004 collision with a tractor-trailer driven by Arthur, seeking a ruling that Canal Insurance's liability policy (including its federally mandated MCS-90 endorsement) covered the accident even though the specific 1989 Volvo had been removed from the policy at Arthur's request. Canal moved for summary judgment, contending the endorsement did not apply because the vehicle was not listed and the haul was intrastate. The court reviewed the policy language, the MCS-90 terms requiring payment of judgments for negligence in operating vehicles subject to the Motor Carrier Act, and precedent such as Carlson v. Century Indemnity Co. on whether the transportation had the requisite interstate character, to determine if coverage existed for the underlying state-court tort claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Ward v. City of North Myrtle Beach, plaintiff Timothy A. Ward sued his former employer, alleging that his termination was motivated by racial bias in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with related state-law claims for outrage and negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which a magistrate judge recommended granting after reviewing the record. The district court conducted a de novo review of the objected-to portions of the report, applied the Rule 56 standard requiring the non-movant to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claims, and examined the evidence concerning the employer's stated reasons for termination and any showing of pretext. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find intentional race discrimination, leading to the grant of summary judgment on all claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This admiralty case concerns title to a 1996 Sea Ray yacht that was stolen in Florida, resold by the thief after altering its hull identification number, and later mortgaged. Northern Insurance Company, which paid the original owner $200,000 under a policy with a salvage clause, brought a petitory and possessory action under Rule 9(h) to recover the vessel from Fat Boy, LLC (the subsequent purchaser) and Carolina First Bank (the mortgage holder). Fat Boy counterclaimed as a bona fide purchaser and sought reimbursement for maintenance and betterments. Applying Florida law, the court determined that the thief could not pass valid title, that Fat Boy did not qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice, and that Northern held superior title to the vessel. The court awarded Fat Boy partial recovery of $15,543.24 for certain costs and betterments but otherwise restored possession and title to Northern.

propertyprocedure

In Poeppel v. Hartford Life Insurance, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company for denying her benefits as a beneficiary under an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan following her brother's death in a single-car accident while driving intoxicated. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the death was not accidental due to the foreseeability of harm from drunk driving. The court, applying de novo review as agreed by the parties, granted the motion, concluding that a reasonable person would foresee death or serious injury from driving while intoxicated, consistent with Fourth Circuit precedent in Baker v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., thus the denial of benefits was proper.

labor & employment