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

Favorite Healthcare Staffing is an employment agency that provides nurses and other health care professionals to Laurel Regional Hospital. The contract between the Agency and the Hospital (the “Staffing Agreement”) states that the Agency-provided practitioners assigned to the Hospital are the employees of the Agency, not the Hospital. At issue in this case is whether a nurse employed by a staffing agency and assigned to work at a hospital qualifies as an “employee” of the hospital under the hospital’s insurance policy (the "Dimensions Policy"). The district court answered in the negative and granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital's insurer. The court concluded, however, that the term “employee” as used in the Dimensions Policy is not ambiguous and that it includes those workers who qualify as employees under the right-to-control test. Therefore, Dimensions has an independent obligation to provide coverage to those workers who meet the definition of “employee,” without regard to how those workers may be classified under the Staffing Agreement executed by the Hospital and the Agency. Because the evidence contained in the record establishes that the nurse is the Hospital’s employee under the right-to-control and the borrowed-servant standards, the court concluded that she is a “protected person” who qualifies for coverage under the professional-liability portion of the Dimensions Policy. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Interstate Fire and Casualty v. Dimensions Assurance Ltd." on Justia Law

Seaside filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680, alleging that the FDA negligently issued a contamination warning in response to an outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul that devalued Seaside’s tomato crop by $15,036,293.95. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the FDA was exercising a discretionary function in connection with the contamination warning. The court explained that the ruling was essential to protect the FDA’s vital role in safeguarding the public food supply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Survivors of John R. Leichling filed suit against Honeywell, alleging that Mr. Leichling’s fatal lung cancer resulted from exposure to toxins during his employment at the Dundalk Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland, where Honeywell operates a chemical manufacturing plant. Decades earlier, Honeywell began using chemical refuse to create a landmass on which the Marine Terminal later sat. The district court dismissed the suit pursuant to Maryland’s 20-year statute of repose, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-108(a). The court concluded that Honeywell's use of chromium ore processing residues (COPR) fill in creating the landmass that later became the base for a large portion of the Dundalk Marine Terminal is thus an improvement to that property pursuant to Maryland’s statute of repose. Because plaintiffs concede that they brought their claims outside of the statute’s 20-year time bar, the district court did not err in dismissing these claims. View "Leichling v. Honeywell International, Inc." on Justia Law

Dreamstreet sold a vacant lot for home construction and MidCountry financed the lot's purchase by a third party. This case arose from the "seller holdback" agreement between Dreamstreet and MidCountry, where part of the purchase price owed to Dreamstreet instead would be retained by MidCountry, pending completion of the home and subject to certain conditions. Dreamstreet alleged that MidCountry fraudulently induced it to enter into the seller holdback agreement, in violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA). Dreamstreet also alleged a claim under the common-law doctrine of constructive fraud. The district court granted summary judgment to MidCountry. With respect to the UDTPA claim, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to MidCountry on statute of limitation grounds. The court also concluded that the undisputed facts of this case reveal an ordinary contractual relationship, with nothing that could give rise to a special fiduciary relationship. Because the existence of a fiduciary relationship is a necessary element of constructive fraud, the district court properly granted summary judgment to MidCountry on this claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dreamstreet Investments, Inc. v. MidCountry Bank" on Justia Law

N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-208.6(4) and 14-208.7(a) requires persons convicted of certain reportable sex offenses to register as “sex offenders.” Under N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-208.18(a), for persons convicted of a subset of those reportable sex offenses, North Carolina restricts their movement relative to certain locations where minors may be present. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging these statutes as unconstitutional. The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 14- 208.18(a)(2) and section 14-208.18(a)(3). The court concluded that neither an ordinary citizen nor a law enforcement officer could reasonably determine what activity was criminalized by subsection (a)(3). Consequently, that subsection does not meet the standards of due process because it is unconstitutionally vague. In regards to subsection (a)(2), the court concluded that the State failed to prove that, while all parties agree North Carolina has a substantial interest in protecting minors from sexual crimes, subsection (a)(2) was appropriately tailored to further that interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "John Doe #1 v. Cooper, III" on Justia Law

The parties are involved in a dispute over a 12-year commercial lease of office space in Baltimore, Maryland. NCO, the lessee, claims that it properly exercised a right of early termination of the lease and that, during the course of the lease, it was overcharged for rent based on erroneous calculations of the space’s square footage. Montgomery Park, the lessor, claims that NCO failed to satisfy the lease’s specific conditions for early termination and that NCO now owes rent for the remainder of the lease term. The court reversed the district court’s ruling that NCO effectively exercised the right of early termination, and affirmed its ruling rejecting NCO’s overcharge claims. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings on Montgomery Park’s claim that NCO breached the lease agreement in failing to pay rent. View "NCO Financial Systems, Inc. v. Montgomery Park, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The trial judge rejected the plea agreement between defendant and the state prosecutor, off the record and without giving reasons other than stating that he was "ready to try a case." Defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to the rejection of the plea agreement and preserve the issue for appellate review. In Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that there is no federal right that a plea be accepted by a judge. Furthermore, the court rejected defendant's contention that Santobello v. New York announced a constitutional due process right that a judge accept a plea bargain. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to make this meritless objection. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rodriguez v. Bush" on Justia Law

UBSFS filed suit seeking to vacate an arbitral award that, in practical effect, granted Gary Padussis over $900,000 in compensatory damages. The district court confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety and declined to impose an offset. In this case, UBSFS plainly agreed to arbitration; the dispute was within the scope of that agreement; and the rules by which the arbitration would proceed were openly declared and followed. The arbitration here spanned eighteen hearing sessions over nine separate days. Because the court found no basis for overturning the arbitral decision, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court explained that any other result would open arbitration proceedings to a host of challenges over the very type of subsidiary questions that Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, indicated should be left to the discretion of the arbitral body. View "UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Padussis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff initially filed a medical malpractice claim with Maryland’s alternative dispute resolution agency within the Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., limitations period. However, plaintiff did not file a complaint in federal court until well after that period had passed. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely. The court concluded that, because an “action is begun” under the FTCA only by filing a civil action in federal district court, plaintiff's claim was untimely. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any extraordinary circumstances warranted equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Raplee, Jr. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the imposition of a capital sentence in the South Carolina courts. Petitioner raised seven grounds for relief, including prosecutorial misconduct and juror bias. The district court granted relief independently on both grounds, vacated petitioner's death sentence, and remanded for resentencing. According to the district court, the state courts unreasonably determined that the “King Kong” comment, “black Indians” testimony, and “blonde-headed lady” remark were not intentional appeals to racial prejudice. The district court also found unreasonable the PCR court’s determination that a juror was not racially biased at the time of the sentencing. Respondents appealed. The court concluded that the state courts unreasonably determined that the prosecutor’s references to petitioner during closing argument were not appeals to racial prejudice. Drawing on this flawed factual finding, the state courts unreasonably concluded that petitioner's right to due process was not violated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bennett v. Stirling" on Justia Law