Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and witness tampering. On appeal, Defendant asserted four evidentiary challenges. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions holding that Defendant’s guilt was so overwhelming that the erroneously admitted evidence did not affect the trial’s outcome.   The court agreed with Defendant that the district court erred when it allowed the victim store employees to testify about how the robberies affected their lives and when it allowed a law enforcement agent to interpret the recorded phone calls. However, the court held that the district court properly permitted the victim store employees to testify that Defendant was the decoy guy and was trying to act like he was afraid during a previous robbery. Further, the court held that the district court appropriately allowed a co-conspirator to testify that Defendant was dangerous and admitted the screenshots that the co-conspirator received of the photographs of the letters saying that he was an informant. View "US v. Charles Walker, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two West Virginia attorneys and a client, contended that West Virginia’s statute regulating legal advertisements that solicit clients in litigation involving medications or medical devices violates the First Amendment by prohibiting attorneys from using certain terms or images in their advertisements and by requiring such advertisements to include certain disclosures. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld the statute concluding that its prohibitions survive constitutional scrutiny because the prohibitions target misleading speech. Further, West Virginia has substantial interests in protecting public health and in preventing deception, and the statute advances these interests in a narrowly tailored and reasonable way. Thus, the statute’s prohibitions and disclosures work together to protect the health of West Virginia citizens who may be misled into thinking that attorneys are reliable sources of medical advice. View "Steven Recht v. Patrick Morrisey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff prevailed before the district court on his Section 1983 claim that North Carolina’s sex-offender registration system deprived him of procedural due process. That judgment was vacated and his case dismissed as moot after the legislature, because of the district court’s ruling, amended its statute to provide procedural protections to offenders like Plaintiff. When Plaintiff sought attorney’s fees, Defendant, state officials, argued that Plaintiff could not be a “prevailing party” under Section 1988 because the judgment in his favor had been vacated. The district court held that Plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, Plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees because the legislative change mooting his case came both after and in response to an award of judicial relief. The court reasoned that Plaintiff was a “prevailing party” under Section 1988 because he won a final judgment on the merits in the district court. He also obtained substantial judicial relief on his claim, including entry of a final injunction requiring that class members be removed from the registry and prohibiting their prosecution for offenses relating only to registered sex offenders. Further, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s calculation of the fee award because the court properly concluded that Plaintiff was “fully successful,” and thus entitled to all the injunctive relief he requested. View "Kenneth Grabarczyk v. Joshua Stein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former Federal Public Defender, was subject to sexual harassment by a supervisor. After attempting to pursue her administrative remedies, Plaintiff claimed she was constructively discharged and resigned. Plaintiff then filed claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, as well as under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985(3) and 1986, against various executive and judicial officers. The district court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims based on her failure to state a claim and Defendant's sovereign immunity.The panel held that Plaintiff's Due Process claim sufficiently plead a deprivation of her property interests, but failed to plead a deprivation of her liberty interest. The panel also held Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim adequately plead sex discrimination; however, her claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985(3) and 1986 failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Finally, the court determined that Plaintiff could only pursue back-pay benefits from all Defendant's named in their official capacity and that all Defendant's named in their individual capacity were entitled to dismissal under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Thus, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Caryn Strickland v. US" on Justia Law

Former employees of Nationwide Motor Sales Corporation sued the company and its owners (collectively, Nationwide) in district court, alleging fraudulent payment practices that reduced employees’ sales commissions and final paychecks. Nationwide produced its Employee Handbook’s provision requiring arbitration. The employees contended that the arbitration agreement is invalid because Nationwide retains the right to change, delete, or modify the policies. The district court denied Nationwide’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the Arbitration Agreement illusory due to the Modification Clause   Applying Maryland law, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, reasoning that the promise to arbitrate was illusory because, on the agreement’s signature page, the employer retained the right to amend or abolish the agreement without notice to the employees. Further, in reviewing the plain meaning of the Acknowledgement Receipt “as a whole,” it is clear that the Modification Clause applies to the Arbitration Agreement. View "Michael Coady v. Nationwide Motor Sales Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his former employer, the Maryland Military Department, and related entities, alleging that they discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of Title VII 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e to 2000e-17. The district court dismissed Holloway’s complaint for failure to state a claim.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim and reversed the dismissal of his unlawful termination and retaliation claims. The court reasoned that to state a claim for unlawful termination, a Title VII plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference that his employer discharged him because of his race. Here, Plaintiff alleged facts crucial to raise the inference of a Title VII violation “above a speculative level.”   Next, Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title VII. The court held that Plaintiff’s claim passes muster at the pleading stage.   However, the court held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim that he was subject to an abusive or hostile work environment based on his race or protected activity. The court rejected Plaintiff’s contention that one episode of yelling and pounding the table is sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish an abusive environment. View "Charles Holloway v. State of Maryland" on Justia Law

Following a data breach targeting servers owned by Defendant, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated federal securities laws by omitting material information about data vulnerabilities in their public statements.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, finding that the investors did not adequately allege that any of Defendant’s statements were false or misleading when made.The court explained that to state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must first allege a “material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.” However, not all material omissions give rise to a cause of action. Here, Plaintiffs focus on statements about the importance of protecting customer data; privacy statements on Defendant's website; and cybersecurity-related risk disclosures. The court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that any of the challenged statements were false or rendered Defendant's public statement misleading. Although Defendant could have disseminated more information to the public about its vulnerability to cyberattacks, federal securities law does not require it to do so. View "Construction Laborers Pension Trust Southern CA v. Marriott International, Inc." on Justia Law

A fire erupted at a cannabidiol oil extraction factory, leased and operated by JDBC Holdings, Inc, d/b/a The CBD Factories (“JDBC”). JDBC filed a claim for insurance coverage with Kinsale Insurance Company (“Kinsale”)., Kinsale filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia alleging that it was not bound to provide coverage. The district court denied Kinsale’s motion for summary judgment, granted in part JDBC’s motion for partial summary judgment, and declared that Kinsale was bound to provide coverage. The district court certified its Order as a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and stayed JDBC’s counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith pending appeal.The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the district court’s order was not a final decision. The court reasoned that though the district court resolved the key question of whether Kinsale was liable for providing coverage for the damage at the JDBC facility, “the order does not embody the essential elements of a money judgment because the court has not found all of the facts necessary to compute the amount of damages due.”Further, the court found that even if the district court’s order was a final judgment, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that there was no just reason for the delay to certify the partial summary judgment order for the court’s review. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Kinsale Insurance Company v. JDBC Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff suffered from back and neck pain for years, and her doctor concluded that surgery would help her relieve her symptoms. After surgery, her insurance provider, Central States, denied her claim. Central States made this determination pursuant to a provision of the plan stating that covered individuals “shall not be entitled to payment of any charges for care, treatment, services, or supplies which are not medically necessary or are not generally accepted by the medical community as Standard Medical Care, Treatment, Services or Supplies.” Central States came to this conclusion based on an independent medical review (IMR) of Plaintiff’s claim, conducted by a physician board-certified in general surgery. Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), and Defendant appealed the district court’s ruling.The Fourth Circuit found that Central States failed to disclose to their IMR physician the medical records that would have been pertinent to his analysis. The court noted that it did not conclude that Central States acted in bad faith or deliberately withheld documentation. But intent aside, Central States owes plan participants a “deliberate, principled reasoning process.” Further, while plan trustees enjoy a good measure of discretion in determining what is “medically necessary” under the terms of the plan, they may not abuse that discretion by employing processes that lead to unreasoned conclusions or by affixing extratextual requirements. The court held that because Central States had ample chance to review Plaintiff’s claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding benefits outright. View "Dorothy Garner v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas" on Justia Law

Defendant, a naturalized United States citizen, received advice from counsel in 2010 that because of his newly obtained citizenship, his guilty plea to a narcotics offense would not subject him to deportation. However, Defendant's citizenship was revoked in 2016. In 2018, Defendant received a Notice to Appear informing him that he would be removed from the country because his 2010 conviction was an aggravated felony. Upon receiving that notice, he filed a collateral attack upon his 2010 guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The district court found that Defendant’s 2018 petition was untimely under Sec. 2255(f)(4).The court reasoned that Sec. 2255 petitions must typically be filed within one year of the date “on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” But petitions based on facts that arise after a conviction becomes final must instead be filed within one year of “the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.Defendant testified that his Alexandria-based attorney told him in 2016 that his conviction was an aggravated felony. The court found that notice alone triggered Sec. 2255(f)(4)’s limitations period. Second, even setting aside that admission, the nature of Defendant’s sentencing proceedings on July 8, 2016, put him on inquiry notice that his 2010 conviction was an aggravated felony. Therefore, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition as untimely. View "US v. Jose Nunez-Garcia" on Justia Law