Case law

Ross v. Washington Mutual Bank

566 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2008

provisions of the FCRA, the FCRA’s statutory scheme calls for the consumer’s remedy generally to be found within sections 1681n or 1681o of the FCRA. 5 Section 1681h(e)-then contains a general bar (sometimes described as qualified … immunity) on a consumer’s action in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence “based on information disclosed pursuant to section 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m ... or based on information disclosed by a user

Gilliam v. Bertie County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2021

ABB, Inc., the □ court found a plausible claim of discrimination when a male born in India of South Asian ethnicity applied for a position he had previously held and “was clearly qualified for the position, based … Thus “[w]here the time between the events too great to establish causation based solely on temporal proximity, a plaintiff must present ‘other relevant evidence . . . to establish causation,’ such as ‘continuing retaliatory

Mitchell v. HCL America, Inc.

190 F. Supp. 3d 477 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2016

Shortly after plain *486 tiff began her employment, defendant allegedly denied her a bonus to which she was entitled and passed her over for a promotion, which defendant awarded to a less-qualified male who was younger than … Lack of considerations is clearly a generally applicable contract defense. The Cheek rule does not bar the arbitration of entire categories of claims.

Koukuntla v. Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2025

OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. 2013) (“It is well-established that parties cannot amend their complaints through briefing or oral advocacy.”). … Section 1985(3) prohibits “two or more persons” from conspiring “for the purpose of depriving . . . any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the

Morris v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 24, 2023

At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must “clearly allege facts demonstrating each element of [standing].” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 (2016) (internal quotation, alteration, and citation omitted); see also Overbey v. … between their pre-approval and closing with CrossCountry and further that there was no material change to their financial status during that time, supporting an inference that, despite the time lapse, they would still have qualified

Jackson v. Rex Hospital, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 2020

This Court finds that Plaintiff Fuller has satisfied all of the requirements to establish a failure to promote claim. Plaintiff Fuller is African-American. Am. Compl. 10. … But these claims of discrimination are clearly not allegations of a hostile work environment.”

Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

131 F. Supp. 3d 496 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 30, 2015

EPA, 16 F.3d 1395, 1399 (4th Cir.1993) (“[P]rimary responsibility for establishing appropriate water quality standards is left to the states.”). … 'The state may even establish more stringent standards than the federal requirements.

Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island, North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 30, 2020

immunity to Mitchell on Bryant's due process claim. … App. 379, 384, 427 S.E.2d 142, 145 (1993)) (plaintiff bears the burden of showing waiver of immunity.) 15 To prove a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that “the

Danzy v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified Expert To start, the court considers whether Dr. Sample is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. … Plaintiff further claims that “[t]he 0.5 ng/10 mg cutoff used by Psychemedics is arbitrary and lacks support from established federal standards.” Id. at 4.

Hicks v. Houston Baptist University

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 17, 2020

Commc’ns Comm’n, 923 F.3d 159, 169 (4th Cir. 2019) (“Because consent generally diminishes any expectation of privacy, phone calls that qualify for the consent exemption are less intrusive than other automated calls … Therefore, the magistrate judge’s determination is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Lanterman v. Carolina Motor Club, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 13, 2023

of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” … “To establish a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove (1) that []he has a disability, (2) that []he is a qualified individual for the employment in question, and (3) that [his] employer

Thomas v. Craige

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2020

“[M]erely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, fails to qualify as state action.” Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2009). … It is a “weighty burden to establish a civil rights conspiracy.” Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, W.Va., 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996).

Bulldog Erectors, Inc. v. Flatiron Constructors, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2025

The directive to hire a Qualified Person applies only once the Equipment is fully erected, and it continues to have effect through the entirety of the leasing period [DE 66-2] at § 8 (specifying that the Qualified Person … To the extent Bulldog can make a sufficient factual showing at trial, the plain language in the Leases speaks clearly as to Flatiron’s obligations.

Robbins v. Altopa, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2023

These allegations are sufficient to qualify as material misrepresentations. … “Judgment on the pleadings is not properly granted unless the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Smith v. Dixon

766 F. Supp. 1370 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 1991

If the petitioner establishes that his counsel’s conduct fell outside the acceptable range, he must then satisfy Strickland’s second prong by establishing a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors … Moreover, petitioner has not met his burden of establishing prejudice.

Love v. United States

889 F. Supp. 1548 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 1994

Judge Boyle’s order in the removed state action stated that, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued, the United States could not be sued. … [The] cases clearly go beyond the line laid down by the Judge.

Irvin v. Versatrim, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 12, 2024

Versatrim argues that Irvin fails to demonstrate that he was a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA. [D.E. 20] 15-16. … “The defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,” a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255.

ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. v. Yahyavi

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 3, 2020

Examining these factors, the court concludes that plaintiff has not clearly shown irreparable harm. … Feb. 28, 2020) (recognizing the misappropriation of trade secrets may qualify as irreparable harm because trade secrets, once exposed, are lost forever).

Dudley v. City of Kinston

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2021

Communicating factual information to an attorney does not render that information immune from discovery. Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 395–96. … Since Defendants have the burden to establish that there is a substantial need for work product, the court believes they also have the burden to clearly articulate the documents they seek to withdraw from the doctrine’s

Dudley v. City of Kinston

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 23, 2020

Matters decided under § 636(b)(1)(A) are subject to review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Id. I. … North Carolina recognizes two types of contribution, one established by statute and one established by common law. But the original defendants cannot show that they are entitled to contribution under either one.