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

Following the September 11 attacks, Kellogg Brown & Root International (KBR) contracted with the U.S. Army to provide logistics support in Iraq and Kuwait. KBR subcontracted with First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting W.L.L. (First Kuwaiti) to provide trailers for troops. First Kuwaiti incurred significant unanticipated costs and sought additional payment from KBR. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration before the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). The ICDR Panel issued a final award denying First Kuwaiti’s claim for payment and resolving all disputes. First Kuwaiti’s request for changes to the award was rejected by the ICDR Panel.First Kuwaiti filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to vacate the arbitration award, which KBR opposed as untimely. KBR also filed a cross-motion to confirm the award. The district court denied First Kuwaiti’s motion to vacate as untimely and granted KBR’s motion to confirm the award. Additionally, the district court denied First Kuwaiti’s request for prejudgment interest on two other claims unrelated to the trailer damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that First Kuwaiti’s motion to vacate was untimely as it was filed more than three months after the final arbitration award was delivered. The court also held that the district court had the authority to confirm the arbitration award under Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act, which applies to arbitrations involving foreign parties and does not require consent for judicial confirmation. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of prejudgment interest, as the stipulations did not explicitly provide for such interest and the circumstances did not warrant it. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders. View "First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting W.L.L. v. Kellogg Brown & Root International, Incorporated" on Justia Law

Donald Ferguson was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing his adopted daughter, Jane Doe, under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5). Ferguson appealed, arguing that the trial court erroneously admitted the first nine and a half minutes of Doe’s forty-five-minute forensic interview. This portion of the interview included rapport-building and rule-explanation segments conducted by NCIS Agent Hannah Gottardi.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia admitted the entire video recording of the forensic interview, including the first nine and a half minutes, over Ferguson’s objection. The court found the evidence relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Ferguson was subsequently convicted based on the evidence presented, including the forensic interview.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the first nine and a half minutes of the forensic interview. The appellate court found that the initial segments of the interview were relevant as they demonstrated that the interview followed the National Children’s Advocacy Center protocol, which is designed to elicit accurate recall from the child. The court also determined that the statements made during these segments were not hearsay because they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show the interview’s adherence to the protocol.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 403, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any potential for unfair prejudice. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed Ferguson’s conviction. View "US v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Steve Kovachevich, a homebuyer, was required to purchase private mortgage insurance (PMI) when he took out a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20%. After a year, he requested his mortgage servicer, LoanCare, to cancel his PMI. LoanCare initially denied the request, stating he had not paid down enough of his mortgage to qualify for cancellation under the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA). However, LoanCare agreed to voluntarily cancel the PMI upon meeting certain conditions, which Kovachevich fulfilled. Subsequently, he sought a refund of the prepaid PMI premiums from the mortgage insurer, National Mortgage Insurance Corporation (NMIC), but was denied.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Kovachevich’s claim under the HPA, ruling that he was not entitled to a refund of unearned premiums under § 4902(f) because his PMI was canceled voluntarily and not under the statutory benchmarks of the HPA. The court also dismissed his state-law claims of unjust enrichment and conversion, stating it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kovachevich’s HPA claim, agreeing that § 4902(f) only mandates refunds for PMI canceled under the statutory benchmarks, not for voluntary cancellations. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded them to the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. View "Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law

West Virginia filed a complaint in state court against CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), alleging that Caremark unlawfully drove up the cost of insulin, causing financial harm to the state. The complaint included state law claims of civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract. Caremark removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that its conduct in negotiating rebates, which is central to the complaint, was performed under the direction of the federal government as part of its work for federal health plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that removal was unwarranted and remanded the case to state court. The district court concluded that Caremark failed to meet the requirements for federal officer removal and noted that West Virginia had disclaimed any federal claims in its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Caremark was entitled to remove the case to federal court under § 1442(a)(1). The court found that Caremark acted under a federal officer because it administered health benefits for federal employees under contracts with FEHBA carriers, which are supervised by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The court also determined that Caremark had a colorable federal defense, specifically that federal law preempted West Virginia's claims. Finally, the court concluded that the charged conduct was related to Caremark's federal work, as the rebate negotiations for federal and non-federal clients were indivisible. Thus, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand decision and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "West Virginia ex rel. Hunt v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C." on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

Rodney Crawley was sentenced in December 2016 to 188 months in prison for a federal drug-trafficking conviction, with an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) for being a career offender due to two prior felony convictions: a 2007 Virginia drug distribution conviction and a 2009 Virginia robbery conviction. Without the enhancement, his sentencing range would have been 84 to 105 months. In 2022, the Fourth Circuit held in United States v. White that Virginia robbery did not qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).Crawley filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that the White decision meant he no longer qualified as a career offender, creating a significant sentencing disparity. He also cited a medical condition increasing his risk for COVID-19 complications and his rehabilitation efforts. The district court denied his motion, finding that the change in law, his medical condition, and his rehabilitation did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the Sentencing Commission’s amended policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, effective November 1, 2023, applied to Crawley’s motion. The court agreed that the White decision created a gross disparity between Crawley’s original sentence and the sentence he would likely receive now. However, Crawley had not served at least 10 years of his term of imprisonment, as required by § 1B1.13(b)(6). Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Crawley’s motion for compassionate release. View "US v. Crawley" on Justia Law

Fabian Grey, a Jamaican citizen and lawful permanent resident in the U.S., applied for naturalization in 2016. After delays in processing his application, Grey filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to declare him eligible for naturalization and to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to naturalize him. He also sought documents from USCIS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and amended his lawsuit to compel USCIS to produce those documents. The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS on both claims, allowing the agency to withhold or redact certain documents under FOIA’s law enforcement exemption and concluding that Grey was ineligible for naturalization due to lying under oath during his deposition.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina found that Grey had lied under oath about a 2016 criminal charge for misprision of a felony during his deposition. The court also determined that USCIS had appropriately responded to Grey’s FOIA request, producing substantial documentation and justifiably withholding or redacting certain documents. Grey appealed the district court’s rulings on both the FOIA and naturalization claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed that USCIS was entitled to withhold certain information under FOIA’s law enforcement exemption and that Grey’s false testimony during his deposition disqualified him from demonstrating the good moral character required for naturalization. The court concluded that Grey was ineligible for citizenship and upheld the district court’s summary judgment in favor of USCIS. View "Grey v. Alfonso-Royals" on Justia Law

The case involves multiple plaintiffs who sued Khalifa Hifter under the federal Torture Victim Protection Act for his actions as the commander of the Libyan National Army. The plaintiffs sought to hold Hifter liable for alleged torture and extrajudicial killings of their family members in Libya. The lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over a 15-month period.In the district court, Hifter moved to dismiss the first two cases, and the court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. Hifter later moved to dismiss the third case, and the court again granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The district court eventually consolidated all three cases for discovery and pretrial matters. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed all three suits with prejudice, citing lack of personal jurisdiction over Hifter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed Hifter’s cross appeals in Nos. 24-1425, 24-1427, and 24-1429, as they merely sought affirmance of the district court’s judgments on alternative grounds. In Nos. 24-1422 and 24-1426, the court reversed the district court’s judgment, finding that Hifter waived his personal jurisdiction defense by failing to timely assert it in his pre-answer motions. The cases were remanded for further proceedings.In No. 24-1423, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Hifter properly raised a personal jurisdiction defense and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment due to the plaintiffs' failure to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. However, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to state that the dismissal is without prejudice. View "al-Suyid v. Hifter" on Justia Law

Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department, was terminated after posting offensive social media content targeting transgender individuals. Misjuns alleged that his termination was due to his political and religious views, which he expressed on his Facebook pages. He claimed that the City of Lynchburg and its officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights, leading to his firing.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed all of Misjuns' claims. The court found that the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were duplicative and dismissed them. The court also dismissed Misjuns' breach of contract, equal protection, conspiracy, and wrongful termination claims. The court partially dismissed his First Amendment claims but later dismissed them entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Misjuns' claims. The court held that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability against the City of Lynchburg, as he did not adequately plead that a policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that the City's Employment Policies & Procedures handbook did not constitute a binding contract, thus dismissing the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and wrongful termination claims against the individual defendants, as those claims were not asserted against the City and had been dismissed by agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that Misjuns did not sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief on any of his six claims, affirming the district court's decision. View "Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg" on Justia Law

Two racing teams, 2311 Racing LLC and Front Row Motorsports, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC (NASCAR) and its CEO, James France. The plaintiffs alleged that NASCAR, as a monopolist, required them to sign a release for past conduct as a condition of participating in the NASCAR Cup Series, which they claimed was anticompetitive. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered NASCAR to allow the plaintiffs to participate in the Cup Series under the 2025 Charter Agreement terms, excluding the release provision. The district court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Section 2 Sherman Act claim, concluding that a monopolist could not require a release from antitrust claims as a condition of doing business.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the district court's theory of antitrust law was unsupported by any case law. The court found that the release provision did not constitute anticompetitive conduct and that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement, which the plaintiffs did not meet. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. View "2311 Racing LLC v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing" on Justia Law