Case law

Donald v. Novant Health, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 2023

Equitable tolling requires a litigant to establish: “(1) that [she] has been pursuing [her] rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in [her] way and prevented timely filing.” … “But any invocation of equity to relieve the strict application of a statute of limitations must be guarded and infrequent, lest circumstances of _ individualized hardship supplant the rules of clearly drafted statutes

Pate v. Medical Diagnostic Laboratories L.L.C.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 15, 2021

These expectations were legitimate because they were applicable to all senior sales executives, and they were communicated clearly in writing to plaintiff. (Id.). … . ¶ 54), sufficient to qualify as a request for accommodation.

American Rockwool, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

640 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 18, 1986

This is not to say that § 75-5(b)(3) is limited to conduct occurring in North Carolina, for clearly conduct occurring outside of North Carolina could impact upon the business activity of a competitor (whether national or … Furthermore, because a statement can be literally true yet misleading in the way it is presented, the “objective truthfulness [of a statement] does not immunize ... [that statement] from scrutiny under the Lanham Act.”

Nallapati v. Justh Holdings LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2023

agreement, or by aregistration[,]” no such “clearly established” rights exist in this case. … by his use in his stores, such rights do not rise to the “clearly established” rights which obligated Prasad to disclose in his applications. See eCash Techs., Inc. v. Guagliardo, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1150 (C.D.

Hancox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 22, 2022

obligations to Plaintiff by its failure to pay the $100,000 in UM coverage,” (Compl. ¶ 49); c) (third claim) bad faith breach of contract claim that defendant State Farm “unreasonably refused to pay amounts clearly … While N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(11) provides “examples of conduct to support a finding of unfair or deceptive acts or practice” in the settlement of insurance claims, “insurance companies are not immune to the general principles

Rose v. Saul

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 14, 2020

The decision itself must be discussed, afforded substantial weight, or else qualified with specific reasons. In this case. the VA determined that Mr. Rose was 100% disabled. … The evidence presented to the ALJ established that Mr. Rose suffers from multiple conditions, including PTSD, obstructive sleep apnea, and migraines. Symptoms Mr.

Rouse v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 22, 2021

In sum, the balance of Restatement II contacts establishing significant relationships favors North Carolina. … Indeed, the court in Alley held that “Pennsylvania clearly has an interest in providing redress for Pennsylvania citizens injured by products they purchased and used within Pennsylvania.”

Progress Solar Solutions, LLC v. Fire Protection, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2019

P. 12(c), A court should grant the motion if “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.” Park Univ. … Nevertheless, “someone cannot preface an otherwise defamatory statement with ‘in my opinion’ and claim immunity from liability.” Nucor Corp., 189 N.C. App. at 736, 659 S.E.2d at 486; see Milkovich v.

Powell v. Nash Edgecombe Economic Development, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 3, 2021

But, since King never established a prima facie case as to his discrimination claims, appellee is under no duty to supply an explanation for King’s discharge.”). … Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 136 (1983) (“[W]e look to federal decisions for guidance in establishing evidentiary standards and principles of law to be applied in discrimination cases.”).

Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Lake Pointe Assisted Living, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2021

A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted if “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.” … Decisions about the number of staff to employ at the facility clearly affect the facility’s ability to perform professional services but do not require health-care skills or training.

Braswell v. Saul

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 24, 2020

optometrists for purposes of establishing visual disorders, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a), 416.913(a) (effective until Mar. 27, 2017). … The ALJ’s rationale is clearly explained and sufficient to enable judicial review. , 846 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir. 2017); , 660 F.

Beard v. John Hiester Chevrolet, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2022

The TCPA does not define “call” and the FCC, United States Supreme Court, and Fourth Circuit have not decided whether a ringless voicemail qualifies as a call. … In Krakauer, the Fourth Circuit rejected the notion that a plaintiff must, in effect, plead a common law cause of action to establish concrete injury. See Krakauer, 925 F.3d at 653—54.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy Nos. TCNR001338, TCNR005665 and TCNR012269 v. Garcia

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 24, 2021

If that burden has been met, the non-moving party must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in dispute to survive summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. … During that time, Stock shall clearly state its position on whether Woomer is entitled to summary judgment in its favor in light of the Court’s 13 decision on Underwriters’ duty

Clemmons Farming, Inc. v. Silveus Southeast LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 2024

However, privity of contract is not necessary to establish a duty under North Carolina law. See Finley Forest Condo. Ass’n v. Perry, 163 N.C. … Nov. 5, 2013) determined that an agent’s affirmative misrepresentation to the insured that a policy covered a particular risk, when the policy written and provided to the agent clearly did not provide such coverage, satisfied

Reaves v. Williamson

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 22, 2022

“Property interests. . . may take many forms,” but “to have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. … A temporary ban from school grounds does not qualify as detention; plaintiff retained freedom of movement everywhere except on school property.

Hubbard v. FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 2023

However, “[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.” Id. … These events do not qualify as adverse employment actions under Title VII. An adverse employment action comes with a “decrease in compensation, job title, level of responsibility, or opportunity for promotion[.]”

Colburn v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2020

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when . . . the movant has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … The Pillsbury Non– Qualified Pension Plan, 458 F.3d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2006); Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson, 251 F.3d 433, 443 (3d Cir. 2001).

McLaurin v. Prestage Foods, Inc.

271 F.R.D. 465 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 10, 2010

First, the class counsel must be “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” Eisen v. … Clearly, not all employees paid on line time wear the same protective gear or use the same equipment.

Farmer v. Miller

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 2022

However, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint clearly alleges two claims for relief: (1) hostile work environment (or, “harassment”) in retaliation for protected activity, and (2) termination in retaliation for protected activity … Ed. 2d 356 (2020) (“Under [McDonnell Douglas], once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of [ ] discrimination through indirect proof, the defendant bears the burden of producing a [ ]neutral stated as discrete acts

Lowery v. All Medicines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2021

Here, the allegation that defendants West and Bell made an admission to relator “that they knew that prescription drugs were not being provided as billed” is a qualifying factual allegation about a statement that was made … First, “the intracorporate immunity doctrine does not apply where a corporate officer has an independent personal stake in achieving the corporation’s illegal objectives.” ePlus Tech., Inc. v.