Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The district court affirmed a bankruptcy court order that entered a preliminary injunction preventing thousands of third-party asbestos claims from proceeding against debtor Bestwall LLC’s affiliates, including affiliate and non-debtor Georgia-Pacific LLC (“New GP”). The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (“Committee”) and Sander L. Esserman, in his capacity as Future Claimants’ Representative (“FCR”) (collectively “Claimant Representatives”), appealed. They argued that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin non-bankruptcy proceedings against New GP and, alternatively, that the bankruptcy court erred in entering the preliminary injunction because it applied an improper standard.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that the bankruptcy court had “related to” jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction and applied the correct standard in doing so. The court explained that the Claimant Representatives asserted that, under the first prong of the preliminary injunction test, the district court should have determined whether Bestwall would ultimately be able to obtain permanent injunctive relief. The court wrote that requiring a party to show entitlement to a permanent channeling injunction this early in the bankruptcy proceeding puts the cart before the horse; Section 524(g) does not require such proof until the plan confirmation stage. Contrary to the express intent of Congress as shown through the Bankruptcy Code, the position of Claimant Representatives would effectively eliminate reorganization under Chapter 11 as 27, an option for many debtors. Therefore, the court rejected the Claimant Representatives’ argument that the bankruptcy court needed to find that it would likely enter a permanent injunction in order to grant a preliminary injunction. View "Bestwall LLC v. Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants" on Justia Law

Advantage Veterans Services of Walterboro, LLC (“AVSW”) and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International, Local 7898 (the “Union”) dispute the legitimacy of an arbitration award, which stemmed from the discharge of a union-represented employee. The appeal centers on the provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”). The CBA contains a number of provisions that govern the relationship between AVSW, the Union and the Union’s members who work at AVSW.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order affirming the arbitration award and vacated the underlying award. The court explained that its deferential standard for determining whether an arbitrator erred substantively is rooted in the contractual nature of arbitration. If the parties agree to resolve disputes by arbitration, the court defers to the determinations made in the process the parties agreed to. Here, however, the CBA limits the arbitrator’s power. It requires that the arbitrator make the reasonable basis determination. And it premises the legitimacy of any arbitration award on the arbitrator’s compliance with that directive. It even provides that any award that is contrary to the CBA in any way—which includes that directive—“shall be deemed not to draw its essence from the [CBA] and shall be vacated.” The court explained that given this language, it would be paradoxical to use a highly deferential standard of review, which, once again, is rooted in principles of contract, to look past the arbitrator’s failure to follow contractually agreed-upon procedural rules for the arbitration. View "Advantage Veterans Services of Walterboro LLC v. United Steel Paper and Forestry Rubber" on Justia Law

Not long after getting a new boss at the Priority Automotive Honda dealership, Plaintiffs effectively resigned from their jobs. They then sued, alleging racial discrimination—claiming that the new boss and the company fostered a hostile work environment and demoted them because they are Black—along with various state torts. Plaintiffs lost at summary judgment and appealed.   The Fourth Circuit largely affirmed but remand their state-law conversion claims for further proceedings. First, the court explained that a reasonable person might conclude that the employee’s alleged “white side” was race-based harassment. But the statement, on its own, does not create a severe or pervasive hostile work environment. Next, the court held that, since Plaintiff failed to support a reasonable inference of unlawful intentional discrimination, the magistrate judge rightfully rejected his disparate-treatment claim. Further, the court held that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ alleged conduct “rises to the level of ‘outrageous and extreme’ as the term has been interpreted and applied” in North Carolina. The court reasoned that courts do not weigh the evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. So when both parties raise facts sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for them at trial, the claim must survive. But discrimination claims need more than neutral facts, an adverse action, and speculation about discriminatory motives to make it past this stage. As such, on the current record, a reasonable juror could find for Plaintiffs on their conversion claim. View "Kenneth Robinson v. Priority Automotive Huntersville, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a Maryland Capitol Police officer, appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on several First and Fourth Amendment claims brought by picketers whom he arrested on the sidewalk outside the Maryland State House. Appellant arrested the picketers after they disobeyed his orders to back up off the sidewalk and protest instead from an adjoining square.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held a reasonable officer in Appellant’s position could have believed that the orders constituted lawful time, place, or manner restrictions on the picketers’ First Amendment rights. Therefore, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained no law, clearly established or otherwise, required Appellant to wait for an imminent traffic accident. Preventive measures to promote public safety are a basic contribution of government. Appellant’s assessment of safety risks and attempts to mitigate them were informed by common sense and the facts on the ground, not animus or conjecture. It was at least reasonable for him to believe that his orders promoted a substantial governmental interest. View "Clayton Hulbert v. Brian Pope" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University (GMU), appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Title IX, procedural due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU and other defendants sued after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment that amounted to sexual harassment.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s erroneous-outcome claim. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that (1) he was subjected to a procedurally flawed or otherwise flawed proceeding; (2) which led to an adverse and erroneous outcome; and (3) involved particular circumstances that suggest ‘gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding. Here, Plaintiff does not connect these generalized pressures to his case in a way that creates a reasonable inference that anti-male bias-motivated GMU’s finding that he sexually harassed his students. Thus, as the district court explained, Plaintiff “has provided no basis from which to infer the existence of bias in his specific proceeding.” Further, Plaintiff’s “allegations of selective enforcement are not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of his legal conclusions.” Finally, the court explained that while Plaintiff’s research, publishing, and teaching about sex may qualify as matters of public concern, his contested speech veered well outside his teaching and scholarship into areas of private, personal interest. View "Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal inmate, brings claims under the Fifth Amendment for money damages against federal prison officials for alleged violations of procedural due process and equal protection. Plaintiff contended his claims are authorized by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and its progeny.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that “the Supreme Court has all but closed the door on Bivens remedies” that do not fit within the precise confines of its prior Bivens cases. The court explained that Plaintiff’s claims are brought against a “new category of defendants”—prison officials, as opposed to a former Congressman in Davis—operating in a different legal and factual context (prisoner litigation). Expanding Bivens to these types of claims would likely have “systemwide consequences” for the BOP in the form of increased litigation, and Congress has so far declined to create a damages remedy for these types of actions against federal prison officials.   Further, the court explained that special factors also counsel against extending the Bivens remedy to cover Plaintiff’s claims. First, the court wrote, Plaintiff’s claims would “require scrutiny of new categories of conduct and a new category of defendants—namely, BOP employees involved in transferring inmates and managing the agency’s housing system” and BOP employees involved in inmate discipline and employment, such as through the UNICOR program. Second, Plaintiff’s claims “intersect with the statutory scheme delegating authority over prison designation, transfer, and housing decisions to the BOP,” as well as those governing prison discipline and inmate employment. View "Joseph Mays v. T. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Terra Renewal Services, Inc. and its parent company Darling Ingredients, Inc. after an accident atop a pressurized tanker left him a paraplegic. He alleged that their negligence led to the accident that injured him. The case went to trial, where the jury found that, though Terra and Darling were negligent, Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, thus barring his recovery. Plaintiff appealed, alleging that the district court committed several reversible errors. His main contention is that the district court erroneously rejected his “sudden emergency” contention and his claim for gross negligence as a matter of law.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit under the business records exception to hearsay the full report that the North Carolina Department of Labor investigator developed during her investigation. The court reasoned that the report is chock full of statements from LJC employees and others, which the district court reasonably anticipated might pose problems of admissibility. The report repeatedly says that such-and-such says one thing, and someone else says another. Many of these statements themselves were hearsay, and the district court rightly refused to accord them a significant role in the trial. View "Anthony Mathis v. Terra Renewal Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Challenged two adverse rulings made by the district court in favor of defendant Wai L. Wong and his business entity, GT Omega Racing, Ltd. (collectively “GTOR”). Wudi and GTOR are Asian-centered business entities that compete in the marketing of video gaming chairs and other products. In March 2017, Wudi obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) a registration for the stylized word mark “GTRACING.” For its part, GTOR claimed that it already owned an earlier use of a similar word mark — that is, “GT OMEGA RACING” — and challenged Wudi’s registration of the “GTRACING” word mark in cancellation proceedings before a USPTO component called the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (the “Board”). In June 2020, the Board ruled in favor of GTOR, concluding that Wudi’s use of the “GTRACING” word mark encroached on GTOR’s earlier use of its own “GT OMEGA RACING” word mark.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the challenged rulings and remanded. The court agreed with Wudi’s primary contention that the district court’s challenged rulings constitute awards of injunctive relief in favor of GTOR and against Wudi. Secondly, the court also agreed that the challenged rulings failed to comport with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and controlling precedent. The court emphasized that the First Order possesses all of the necessary attributes and thus qualifies as an injunction order. That is, the First Order contains “clear, enforceable directives” and threatens Wudi with contempt for noncompliance. View "Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wai Wong" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contends that First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. and its directors violated the securities laws by misleading shareholders like him about the true value of their shares ahead of a stock-for-stock merger. To comply with Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Plaintiff claims, First Connecticut needed to disclose specific cashflow projections—and particularly an earlier, rosier set of projections—in the proxy statement, it circulated to investors. The district court granted First Connecticut’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Plaintiff hadn’t shown that (1) the cash-flow projections were material; (2) their omission caused him any economic loss, or (3) the directors acted negligently in approving the proxy statement.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff’s evidence doesn’t establish that he or any other shareholder suffered an economic loss because the cash-flow projections weren’t in the proxy statement. So the district court correctly granted summary judgment on this basis as well. Further, the court reasoned that Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act provides that “controlling persons” can be vicariously liable for violations of the securities laws. But a claim “under Section 20(a) must be based upon a primary violation of the securities laws,” and the court agreed that Plaintiff has established no such violation here. View "Selwyn Karp v. First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc." on Justia Law

Clary Hood, Inc. (“Hood, Inc.”), a South Carolina corporation engaged in land excavation and grading, with revenue of $44 million in 2015 and $69 million in 2016, paid its CEO a $5 million bonus in both of those years, deducting the payments on its income tax returns as reasonable business expenses under 26 U.S.C. Section 162(a)(1). The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) contended that the bonuses were excessive, with the excess amount actually representing a disguised payment of dividends from profits, which could not be deducted. The Tax Court mostly agreed with the IRS and determined that Hood, Inc. could only deduct roughly $3.7 million for 2015 and $1.4 million for 2016 as reasonable amounts for total compensation to its CEO. Accordingly, it assessed tax deficiencies for both years in the total amount of roughly $1.96 million, as well as a penalty for 2016 in the amount of $282,398.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s findings with respect to the amount of reasonable deductions and consequent tax deficiency but vacated the imposition of the penalty. The court explained that because the record indicates that Hood, Inc. anticipated remedying Mr. Hood’s past under compensation in installments over multiple years and discussed that plan with its tax advisors, who approved it as reasonable, the court concluded that the Tax Court’s finding regarding the reasonable-cause defense for the 2015 tax year should also have applied to the 2016 tax year. Further, Hood, Inc. used a consistent methodology to determine the amount of Mr. Hood’s bonuses for both 2015 and 2016 with the advice of independent accountants. View "Clary Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law