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

Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against his former employer, Accenture, alleging claims for age discrimination. Accenture moved to compel arbitration. While the motion to compel arbitration was pending with the Superior Court, plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and filed an action in district court. Accenture moved to compel arbitration of these claims as well. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in compelling arbitration. The court held that, where the plaintiff is not pursuing Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, neither 7 U.S.C. 26(n)(2), nor 18 U.S.C. 1514A(e)(2) overrides the FAA's mandate that arbitration agreements are enforceable. Because plaintiff was not pursuing a "dispute under this section" Dodd-Frank did not bar arbitration of his federal claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit for survivor's benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901-945. Petitioner sought review of an April 2012 decision of the BRB affirming the denial of benefits by an ALJ. The court held that petitioner satisfied the test for survivor's benefits: she is the surviving spouse of a miner whose death was hastened by pneumoconiosis due at least in part to coal mine employment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to award benefits without further administrative proceedings.View "Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a prohibited object by a federal inmate. Defendant received a jury trial in which the jury made two specific factual findings but never returned a guilty verdict. The court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded, concluding that the district court violated defendant's right to have a jury determine his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "United States v. Ramirez-Castillo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Colgate and others, asserting that each of the defendants' products had at some point exposed them to asbestos. Colgate removed to federal court on the basis of diversity citizenship. The district court remanded to federal court. The federal removal statute immunizes from review any order remanding to state court a case removed to federal court, with an exception for certain civil rights cases or suits against federal officers. Colgate argued that a federal court may strike a remand order and retrieve a remanded case from its state cousin as a sanction against plaintiffs' counsel for making misrepresentation to the federal court related to the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the face of Congress' explicit direction to federal courts that an order remanding a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after it has been removed "is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, " 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), the court rejected Colgate's collateral attack on the remand orders and affirmed the order of the district court insofar as it ruled that it lacked jurisdiction.View "Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing two firearms while being an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Defendant argued that section 922(g)(3) infringed his right to bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, agreeing that the government adequately demonstrated a reasonable fit between its important interest in protecting the community from gun violence and section 922(g)(3), which disarms unlawful drug users and addicts.View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former officer of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), was convicted of four offenses related to his involvement in a kickback scheme to funnel wrecked automobiles to a Baltimore auto repair shop in exchange for monetary payments. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on three Hobbs Act extortion counts, 18 U.S.C. 1951, plus a charge of conspiracy to commit such extortion, 18 U.S.C. 371. The court vacated the district court's award of restitution to Erie Insurance because Erie was not a "victim" under the Victim Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663.View "United States v. Ocasio" on Justia Law

Respondent filed suit in state court against multiple defendants alleging various construction defects in her home. Petitioners, a subset of defendants, filed a petition in federal court to compel respondent to arbitrate her claims against them based on an arbitration clause in the warranty. The court remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction because petitioners failed to join necessary and indispensable parties, some of which were non-diverse from resopndent, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.View "Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Dal-Tile, alleging claims of racial and sexual hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and common law obstruction of justice. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dal-Tile. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims and remanded for further consideration because a reasonable fact-finder could find that there was an objectively hostile work environment based on both race and sex and that Dal-Tile knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to adequately respond. The court affirmed, however, the grant of summary judgment on the claims of constructive discharge and common law obstruction of justice.View "Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp." on Justia Law

The trustee in this case requested a trustee's fee of $17,254.61. At issue was whether, in light of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), 11 U.S.C. 330, a bankruptcy court is required, absent extraordinary circumstances, to compensate Chapter 7 trustees on a commission basis. Also at issue was whether the court should remand the case to the bankruptcy court with instructions to apply the correct legal standard after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, Chapter 7 trustees must be paid on a commission basis, as required by section 330(a)(7). The court reversed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's non-commission-based fee award and remanded with instructions to vacate the trustee's fee award and remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court so that it could determine the proper commission-based fee.View "In Re: H. Jason Gold" on Justia Law

Defendant Erasto appealed his sentence of 180 months' imprisonment and Defendant Juarez-Gomez appealed two of the six counts he was convicted of and the application of several sentencing enhancements. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Juarez-Gomez's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting the same; the court affirmed the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 3B1.4, the use of a minor enhancement; affirmed the district court's imposition of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon for Erasto; affirmed the district court's imposition of the leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) for Juarez-Gomez; and therefore, affirmed the judgments of the district court.View "United States v. Gomez-Jimenez" on Justia Law