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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling denying the bankruptcy trustee's objection to exemptions claimed by debtors. In this case, the district court concluded that the applicable bankruptcy statute authorized debtors to utilize Louisiana's state law statutory scheme to exempt personal property in West Virginia from debtors' bankruptcy estate. The court agreed with the well-reasoned analysis of the district court that the bankruptcy court correctly adopted the state-specific interpretation of 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(A). The court explained that the district court's adoption of the state-specific approach was consistent with the rulings of at least two sister appellate courts that have addressed the issue. View "Sheehan v. Ash" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Cadrillion, Legacy North Carolina, and James Yuhas, alleging claims for breach of contract, conversion, abuse of process, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Fourth Circuit held that, by failing to pay the Call Price owed under the Agreement, Cadrillion breached a duty it assumed only as a result of that contract. Therefore, the economic loss rule applied and Cadrillion and Yuhas were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' conversion claim. Because the court reversed as to the conversion claim, leaving plaintiffs with only a breach of contract claim, the court must also reverse the punitive damages award. Because the court reversed on the conversion claim and remanded for a new trial on contract damages, the results obtained and extent to which plaintiffs prevailed may substantially change. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's grant of attorneys' fees and remanded for the district court to reassess the proper amount of fees. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Cadrillion and Yuhas on the abuse of process claim. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the abuse of process and unfair and deceptive trade practices claim. View "Legacy Data Access, Inc. v. Cadrillion, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant Saint Louis and Tulin's convictions for charges stemming from their involvement in the kidnappings of two Americans in Haiti. The court agreed with the district court's observation that, although it certainly was not a perfect trial, the issues raised by defendants ultimately did not warrant reversal. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence of a codefendant's out-of-court identification of Tulin; by denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on the introduction of testimony about a previous sexual assault by someone else; by violating Tulin's rights under the Confrontation Clause; by denying him a fair trial; by determining that the weight of the evidence did not warrant a new trial; and by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for inflicting serious bodily injury. View "United States v. Saint Louis" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's conclusion that petitioner was ineligible for asylum. In Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573, 584 (4th Cir. 2017), the court recently held that an alien subject to a reinstated order of removal may not apply for asylum. Mejia's fact pattern was substantially similar to petitioner's where the alien had grounds to apply for asylum prior to her initial removal. The court held that petitioner's arguments were inconsistent with the plain terms of 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D) and were contrary to Mejia's holding that section 1231(a)(5) attached a categorical prohibition against applying for asylum to aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal. View "Lara-Aguilar v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Rocky Mount regulated sexually oriented businesses by requiring them to obtain a license prior to operation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of American Entertainers' First Amendment overbreadth and Equal Protection challenge to Rocky Mount's licensing ordinance. However, the court held that the district court erred by rejecting American Entertainers' prior restraint claim where the challenged provision was insufficiently narrow, objective, and definite to pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, the court held as unconstitutional the relevant denial provision in the ordinance and remanded to the district court to consider whether and to what extent the provision was severable from the remainder of the ordinance. View "American Entertainers, LLC v. City of Rocky Mount, NC" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment requiring Just Born, a candy manufacturer, to pay delinquent contributions into the Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry International Pension Fund, as well as interest, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. Under a plain-language application of the Provision to the facts of this case, the court held that Just Born was liable to the Pension Fund for continued contributions for all employees hired after the declaration of an impasse, pending the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in compliance with section 1085 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the invocation of the withdrawal provisions, or some other statutorily required act. Accordingly, the Pension Fund was entitled to judgment on the pleadings so long as Just Born did not present a cognizable affirmative defense. The court agreed with the district court's reasoning that the Rule 9(b) standard applied to Just Born's affirmative defenses and that Just Born's allegations did not satisfy this standard. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that Just Born did not plead its affirmative defenses with sufficient particularity to withstand the Pension Fund's motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Bakery and Confectionary Union v. Just Born II, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the Social Security Administration's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. The court held that the ALJ erred by not according adequate weight to a prior disability determination by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Accordingly, the court remanded the case with instructions to vacate the denial of benefits and remanded for further administrative proceedings. View "Woods v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Cohen, as the president and chairman of companies that sold insurance to those in the entertainment industry, was obliged to submit regular financial statements to insurance regulators. Beginning in 2008, Cohen engaged in a scheme to defraud policyholders and the public. Cohen created fraudulent financial documents and sent fraudulent representations to auditing firms and others, securing favorable opinions on the financial standing of his companies, which received more than $100,000,000 in premiums. Prosecutors secured a 31-count indictment, alleging that Cohen’s arrest upended his intentions to harm public officials. Cohen had purchased a long-range tactical rifle, plus ammunition and a night vision device and had researched homemade bombs, purchased ammonium nitrate and made recordings about plans to attack public officials. As his scheme unraveled, Cohen threatened witnesses. Cohen, who represented himself during most proceedings, eventually pleaded guilty to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, making false statements to insurance regulators, and obstruction of justice. Cohen was sentenced to 444 months in prison. The Fourth Circuit upheld Cohen’s appeal waiver and dismissed certain claims. The court rejected, on the merits, claims that the district court erred in failing to conduct a Farmer hearing on his asset seizure allegations and that Cohen’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was contravened by the magistrate’s denial of his request to revoke his pro se status and have a lawyer appointed for his final sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Cohen" on Justia Law

The Yearsley doctrine applies to claims arising under federal law. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of GDIT's motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an action alleging that GDIT violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court held that GDIT was immune from suit under the Yearsley doctrine, which immunizes government contractors from suit when the government authorized the contractor's actions and the government validly conferred that authorization. The court found nothing in Yearsley or its progeny that limited its application solely to state law liability. The court held that the district court did not err in treating Yearsley applicability as a jurisdictional bar to suit and granting GDIT's motion to dismiss. View "Cunningham v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc." on Justia Law

This trademark infringement action concerned whether Walmart's use of the mark "Backyard Grill" on its grills, and grilling supplies infringed on Variety's use of its registered mark, "The Backyard," and unregistered marks, "Backyard" and "Backyard BBQ." Variety appealed the district court's calculation of disgorged profits and denial of its request for a jury trial, and Walmart cross-appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Variety and award of profit disgorgement, costs, and attorneys' fees. The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in Variety's favor because there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether a likelihood of confusion exists. The court vacated the district court's order granting Variety's motion for partial summary judgment and affirmed the order denying Walmart's motion for summary judgment; vacated every order entered subsequent to the summary judgment rulings; vacated the award of profit disgorgement, costs, and attorneys' fees; and dismissed the parties' respective cross-appeals pertaining to disgorgement, denial of jury trial, and award of costs and fees. View "Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law