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

Plaintiff KeraLink is a non-profit corporation with its headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, and operated a network of eye banks in many states. KeraLink purchased from third-party vendors medical equipment and supplies, including “surgical packs” containing “eyewash” used to irrigate the eye tissue. KeraLink purchased the custom-designed surgical packs at issue here from defendant Stradis Healthcare, LLC (Stradis), which has its headquarters in Georgia. At issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to Plaintiff on its claim against two suppliers of contaminated eyewash used to remove donated eye tissue for future transplant.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that under the facts presented here, neither supplier was entitled to invoke the sealed container defense, an affirmative defense reserved for only certain types of sellers. Additionally, the economic loss rule barring liability for solely economic losses in a tort claim was inapplicable because KeraLink also sought damages for injury to property, namely, the recovered eye tissue rendered unusable by the contaminated eyewash. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion under Maryland law in awarding the plaintiff prejudgment interest. View "Keralink International, Inc. v. Geri-Care Pharmaceuticals Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a self-professed “tester” who has filed hundreds of similar lawsuits throughout the country under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Plaintiff complained about hotel reservation websites that do not allow for reservation of accessible guest rooms or provide sufficient accessibility information. Here, the defendant is Naranda Hotels, LLC, the owner of the Sleep Inn & Suites Downtown Inner Harbor in Baltimore. The district court dismissed Laufer’s ADA claim against Naranda for lack of Article III standing to sue.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation of an informational injury accords her Article III standing to pursue her ADA claim against Naranda and to seek injunctive relief-whether or not she ever had a definite and credible plan to travel to the Baltimore area. The court also recognized that its decision appears to even the split among the courts of appeals at 3-3 — three circuits that have ruled in Plaintiff’s favor based on an informational or stigmatic injury, and three that have ruled against her and similarly situated plaintiff. View "Deborah Laufer v. Naranda Hotels, LLC" on Justia Law

This bankruptcy appeal involves a primary insurer’s attempts to block its insureds’ Chapter 11 reorganization plan (the “Plan”), which establishes a trust under 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g) for current and future asbestos personal-injury liabilities. In adopting the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to confirm the Plan, the district court concluded in relevant part that the primary insurer was not a “party in interest” under 11 U.S.C. Section 1109(b) and thus lacked standing to object to the Plan.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, but on both Section 1109(b) grounds and Article III grounds. The court explained that as an insurer, Plaintiff fails to show that the Plan impairs its contractual rights or otherwise expands its potential liability under the subject insurance policies, so it is not a party in interest under Section 1109(b) with standing to challenge the Plan in that capacity. Similarly, as a creditor, Plaintiff objects to parts of the Plan that implicate only the rights of third parties, which fails to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Accordingly, none of Plaintiff’s objections to the Plan can survive. View "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Elizur International Inc. (“Elizur”) filed a Form I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker on behalf of its employee, seeking to permanently employ their employee in the United States as a multinational executive or manager under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Elizur’s petition. Rather than file an administrative appeal, Elizur and the employee sued in federal court and lost.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the agency did not commit a clear error in judgment. The record contains ample support for the agency’s conclusion that Elizur failed to provide the necessary level of detail as to the employee's duties to permit the agency to conclude that the employee functioned in a managerial or executive capacity while employed at Triple-R. Further, the generic and vague statements, many of which the agency cited in its decision, fall well short of what’s required to demonstrate that the employee primarily performed managerial or executive functions. View "Chuncheng Ren v. USCIS" on Justia Law

Dmarcian, Inc. (dInc) and dmarcian Europe BV (dBV)—and a broken business relationship. The original dmarcian, dInc, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in North Carolina. Its corporate homonym, dBV, is a Dutch entity based in the Netherlands. The two companies negotiated an agreement authorizing dBV to sell dInc’s software in Europe and Africa. The license was done on a handshake, and the parties now dispute its terms. Among other allegations, dInc accuses dBV of directly competing for customers, which prompted dInc to bring claims of copyright and trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference. The district court exercised personal jurisdiction over dBV and declined to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The district court also issued a preliminary injunction limiting dBV’s use of dInc’s intellectual property. The district court later held dBV in contempt for violating the injunction, and dBV appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed except as to one aspect of the contempt order, which the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to the proper amount of sanctions. The court explained that the district court did not err in exercising personal jurisdiction, in declining to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and in issuing a preliminary injunction. Further, the court held that the district court was also justified in issuing a contempt sanction; but the court  requires a more thorough examination of the sanction amount. While the preliminary injunction may not be the final word on the merits, its entry was also not an abuse of discretion considering the weighty interests and detailed findings discussed at length above. View "Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Europe BV" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec 922(g)(1) after he fled a traffic stop. The district court sentenced him to 99 months’ imprisonment, which included an enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for the use or possession of the firearm “in connection with another felony offense,” namely failure to stop for a blue light. At sentencing, Defendant objected to the enhancement on both procedural and substantive grounds. For his procedural argument, Defendant argued that he was not given the required notice of the enhancement because the presentence report identified “another felony offense” as the basis for the enhancement. For his substantive argument, Defendant argued that he did not possess the firearm found in the vehicle in connection with the blue-light offense. The district court rejected Defendant's arguments.The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant's firearm conviction and sentence, finding that although the district court erred in determining Defendant was provided with the required notice, the error was harmless given the circumstances of the case. View "US v. Jason Dix" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951, and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 924(c) and 924(j)(1). In a pretrial motion to suppress, Defendant argued that certain statements he made to detectives and witness identifications should be suppressed. The district court disagreed, admitting the evidence. Defendant was convicted.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant's robbery and firearm convictions. While the district court erred in admitting Defendant's statements and the witness identifications, in light of the admissible evidence, any error was harmless. The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the cumulative error rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly instructed the jury that a Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(A). View "US v. Demarcus Ivey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant brought suit against Defendant-Appellee the City of Salem, Virginia, alleging that Salem failed to promote her based on her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Bandy sought a booking-coordinator position at the Salem Civic Center (the Center), but Salem passed her up and instead hired a significantly younger candidate. Following discovery, Salem moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the finding that no reasonable jury could find that Salem did not promote Plaintiff because of her age. The court explained that Plaintiff asserted that her employer preferred to hire “young men” and “stacked” the interview committee against her by excluding human resources representatives. These assertions amount to little more than speculation. Human resources remained involved in the hiring process and screened every applicant to ensure that they were minimally qualified. Moreover, Plaintiff was not even among the top three candidates for the position, and one of the candidates ranked ahead of her was, in fact, a woman older than her. Crucially, the evidence demonstrated that the interview committee hired the other employee over Plaintiff for a number of legitimate reasons: his job experience, particularly in promotion and marketing; higher education in sports, communication, and executive leadership; sales background; enthusiasm; and preparation. View "Tammy Bandy v. City of Salem, Virginia" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deported Petitioner, a permanent resident of the United States, since he was six years old, because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) deemed his altercation with the police an aggravated felony. Because of that designation, Petitioner was not allowed back into the United States. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the type of offense Petitioner committed no longer qualified as an aggravated felony. Learning of that decision in 2019, Petitioner moved the BIA to reconsider its original removal order and to equitably toll the usual thirty-day deadline for filing such motions in view of the legal change. The BIA declined. It did not dispute that Petitioner is entitled to be readmitted into the country, but it rejected Petitioner’s request to toll the limitations period, believing him insufficiently diligent in discovering his rights.   The Fourth Circuit held that it has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Board’s diligence determination, remanding to the BIA to consider the second prong of the equitable-tolling inquiry—whether the change in the law constituted an extraordinary circumstance—as well as the merits of Petitioner’s claim. The court explained that because the BIA determined Petitioner was not diligent, it did not consider whether Johnson and Dimaya presented an extraordinary circumstance that would warrant equitable tolling. View "Damien Williams v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), alleging that Amtrak suspended and subsequently terminated him based on his race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Following discovery, Amtrak moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Amtrak because Plaintiff failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Amtrak suspended and terminated him based on race. The court reasoned that Amtrak “considers insubordination a terminable offense due to its severity and adverse impact in the workplace.” As such, Plaintiff did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he satisfactorily performed his job duties. Further, Plaintiff did not show that he was treated differently than other similarly situated employees outside his protected class. View "Duncan Giles v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law