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

John Koontz received two letters from SN Servicing Corporation (SNSC) regarding his residential mortgage loan. Koontz had previously filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and his debts were discharged. The letters from SNSC stated that they were attempting to collect a debt and mentioned late fees assessed to Koontz's loan account. Koontz filed a lawsuit claiming that SNSC's actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and a similar West Virginia law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed Koontz's complaint. The court concluded that Koontz was no longer a "consumer" with a "debt" under the FDCPA due to his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. The court also found that the letters did not constitute attempts to collect a consumer debt and that Koontz failed to adequately plead a "false, deceptive, or misleading representation" under the FDCPA. Consequently, the court dismissed both the federal and state claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision in part. The appellate court held that Koontz remained a "consumer" with a "debt" under the FDCPA despite his Chapter 7 discharge, as the mortgage lien remained an enforceable obligation. The court also determined that the letters from SNSC constituted attempts to collect a debt. However, the court agreed with the district court that Koontz failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e but found that he adequately stated a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the state-law claim for the same reasons. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Koontz v. SN Servicing Corporation" on Justia Law

A retired teacher, Patsy Talley, received overpayments in her retirement benefits from the North Carolina Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System (TSERS) for over eight years, totaling $86,173.93. When the overpayment was discovered, TSERS began reducing her monthly benefits to recoup the overpaid amount. Talley did not dispute the overpayment but argued that the recoupment process violated her due process rights because she was not provided a hearing before the reductions began.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed all of Talley’s claims. The court held that her official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, her substantive due process claim failed because she received adequate post-deprivation process, and her equal protection claim did not allege a fundamental right or suspect class. The court also dismissed her individual capacity procedural due process claim, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court denied Talley’s motion to amend her complaint to add new plaintiffs, citing procedural deficiencies and lack of good cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the Eleventh Amendment barred the official capacity claims and that the individual capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity. The court found that Talley failed to state a substantive due process claim because she received adequate post-deprivation process and that her equal protection claim did not meet the rational basis review. The court also upheld the denial of her motion to amend the complaint, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court. View "Talley v. Folwell" on Justia Law

Telly Armstrong pled guilty in March 2005 to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and was sentenced to 384 months in prison. Armstrong later filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that the disparity between his original sentence and the sentence he would receive under current law constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. The district court acknowledged the disparity but denied the motion, citing Armstrong's extensive criminal history and the violent nature of his offenses.Armstrong appealed the denial of his compassionate release motion and subsequently filed a pro se motion for reconsideration in the district court. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that Armstrong's arguments were without merit. Armstrong then appealed the denial of his motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The principal question was whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 37 allows district courts to deny motions for reconsideration while an appeal of the underlying order is pending. The Fourth Circuit held that Rule 37 does grant such authority, allowing district courts to deny, defer, or provide an indicative ruling on motions for reconsideration during a pending appeal. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Armstrong's motion for reconsideration, clarifying that the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 37. The court also noted that arguments raised by the government regarding the timeliness and propriety of Armstrong's motion for reconsideration were waived as they were not raised in the lower court. View "US v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Melissa Barrett was serving a 168-month sentence for federal drug offenses when Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect. This amendment, made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission, limited the impact of "status points" used in calculating Barrett's original Guideline range. Barrett moved to reduce her sentence to 120 months based on this amendment. The government agreed she was eligible for a reduction but disagreed on the scope of the amendment's retroactive effect. Barrett argued that the amendment affected both her criminal history category and her offense level, while the government contended it only applied to her criminal history category. The district court sided with the government and reduced Barrett's sentence to 150 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia initially reviewed the case. The court recognized Barrett's eligibility for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) due to Amendment 821 but concluded that the amendment only applied to her criminal history category, not her offense level. Consequently, the court reduced her sentence to 150 months, reflecting a revised Guideline range of 135 to 168 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred by not giving full retroactive effect to Amendment 821. The Fourth Circuit determined that the amendment should apply to both Barrett's criminal history category and her offense level. The court explained that the policy statement at § 1B1.10(b)(1) requires determining the amended guideline range, which includes both the criminal history category and the offense level. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of Barrett's motion, instructing the lower court to determine if Barrett qualifies for the offense-level reduction under § 2D1.1(b)(17). View "US v. Barrett" on Justia Law

Three West Virginia residents, dissatisfied with their cable and internet service provided by Suddenlink, sued Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, Cequel III Communications I, LLC, Cequel III Communications II, LLC, and Altice USA, Inc. They alleged that Suddenlink failed to provide reliable services and sought damages for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. Suddenlink moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement in its 2021 Residential Services Agreement (RSA). The district court denied the motions, concluding that a 2017 arbitration agreement controlled, was unconscionable, and could not be enforced.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia found the 2017 arbitration agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable, citing the unequal bargaining power between the parties, the adhesive nature of the contract, and the complexity of the terms. The court also noted that the 2017 agreement lacked an opt-out provision and included terms that were overly harsh and lacked mutuality. Consequently, the district court denied Suddenlink’s motions to compel arbitration in all three cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the 2021 arbitration agreement, not the 2017 version, governed the disputes. The court found that the 2021 agreement was valid and enforceable, as it satisfied all elements of contract formation, including mutual assent and valuable consideration. The court also concluded that the 2021 arbitration agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable. The court reversed the district court’s judgments and remanded the cases with instructions to compel arbitration. View "Meadows v. Cebridge Acquisition, LLC" on Justia Law

Studco Building Systems US, LLC, a metal fabricator, regularly purchased steel from Olympic Steel, Inc. and paid invoices via ACH payments. In October 2018, Studco received a fraudulent email, purportedly from Olympic, instructing it to redirect payments to a new account at 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union. Studco complied, transferring over $550,000 to the scammers' account. The scammers were never identified, and Studco bore the loss.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Studco, awarding it $558,868.71 plus attorney fees and costs. The court found 1st Advantage liable under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207 for failing to act in a commercially reasonable manner and for breach of bailment. The court concluded that 1st Advantage should have detected the misdescription of the account name and number.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's judgment on the misdescription claim, holding that under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207, a bank is not liable for depositing funds into an account based on the account number provided, unless it has actual knowledge of a misdescription. The court found no evidence that 1st Advantage had actual knowledge of the misdescription. The court also reversed the judgment on the bailment claim, stating that a general deposit in a bank does not create a bailment under Virginia law. The court affirmed the district court's denial of punitive damages to Studco.The Fourth Circuit's main holding was that 1st Advantage was not liable under § 8.4A-207 because it lacked actual knowledge of the misdescription, and no bailment was created by the ACH deposits. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of 1st Advantage. View "Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

Brooke N. Somers, a resident of Cecil County, Maryland, attended a Board of Education meeting on February 9, 2022, without wearing a mask, contrary to Maryland state emergency regulations. Officer Anthony Devine and John Roush informed her she could not enter without a mask. Somers claimed a medical exemption but was directed to sit in the lobby and watch the meeting via livestream. After causing a disturbance in the lobby and refusing to lower her volume or leave when ordered, Somers was arrested by Officer Devine. She resisted arrest, leading to a minor scuffle. Somers was charged with several offenses, convicted on two counts, but later acquitted on appeal.Somers filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against multiple defendants, including Officer Devine. The district court dismissed claims against all defendants except Devine, granting him summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for all federal-law claims, including retaliatory arrest, unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that an objectively reasonable officer could have found probable cause for Somers' arrest, thus entitling Officer Devine to qualified immunity on the retaliatory arrest, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution claims. The court also found that the force used by Officer Devine was minimal and reasonable given Somers' resistance, granting him qualified immunity on the excessive-force claims. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Somers v. Devine" on Justia Law

A tragic boat accident occurred when Edward Barnett, while navigating a coastal river, crashed into a dike, resulting in his and his coworker's deaths. Penny Jo Barnett, his widow, sued the Coast Guard, alleging that their failure to maintain navigational aids caused the crash. She claimed the Coast Guard did not properly maintain the lights that were supposed to warn mariners of the dike’s presence.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled in favor of the Coast Guard after a bench trial. The court found that the Coast Guard was immune from the allegations under the discretionary function exception to the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA). The court also held that the failure to repair one non-working light on the dike did not breach the Coast Guard’s duty to repair aids to navigation in a reasonable time. Additionally, the court concluded that Edward Barnett’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the discretionary function exception applied to the Coast Guard’s decisions regarding the brightness, flash sequence, and background lighting of the navigational aids. The court found no statute, regulation, or policy requiring the Coast Guard to take specific actions to alter or improve these aids. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that Edward Barnett’s actions, including exiting the navigable channel, not using a chart plotter, and traveling at high speed at night, were the sole proximate cause of the crash. Thus, the Coast Guard did not breach any duty under maritime negligence theory, nor did it cause the crash. View "Barnett v. United States" on Justia Law

Westmont Living, Inc., a California corporation operating retirement communities and assisted living facilities, filed a lawsuit against Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (RUI), a Virginia corporation, alleging trademark infringement. Westmont Living claimed that RUI's use of the name "The Westmont at Short Pump" for its new facility in Virginia created a likelihood of confusion with Westmont Living's federally registered "Westmont Living" trademarks, violating the Lanham Act and related laws. Westmont Living sought an injunction and damages.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of RUI, concluding that consumer confusion was impossible because the parties operated in entirely distinct geographic markets. The court relied on the Second Circuit's decision in Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., which held that no likelihood of confusion exists when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred by relying solely on the geographic separation of the parties' physical facilities without considering other relevant factors that might bear on the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasized that modern advertising and the national scope of both parties' marketing efforts necessitate a broader analysis. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the various factors relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion, including the parties' competitive marketing, the locations from which they solicit and draw customers, and the scope of their reputations. View "Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Shelby Roberts rented an apartment from Ansley at Roberts Lake Apartments. After a dispute over the lease termination, Ansley retained her $500 security deposit and sent her an invoice for $791.14 for additional damages. Roberts believed these charges were fabricated and refused to pay. Ansley referred the debt to Carter-Young, a collection agency, which reported the debt to credit reporting agencies. Roberts disputed the debt, but Carter-Young only confirmed the debt with Ansley without further investigation. Roberts sued Carter-Young for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed Roberts' claim, stating that her dispute involved legal, not factual, matters, and thus did not require Carter-Young to investigate under the FCRA. The court held that the FCRA did not mandate investigations into legal disputes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that to state a claim under the FCRA, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the information in their credit report is inaccurate or incomplete and that this inaccuracy is objectively and readily verifiable by the furnisher. The court found that both legal and factual disputes could form the basis of a claim if they meet this standard. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if Roberts' allegations met the new standard of being objectively and readily verifiable. View "Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc." on Justia Law