Case law

Taveney v. International Paper Company

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2022

At that point, to amend a pleading, a party must first establish “good cause” under Rule 16 and then establish the traditional requirements under Rule 15 (i.e., the absence of prejudice, futility, and bad faith). … 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. Enters. Inc. v.

Remy v. Lubbock National Bank

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2019

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The facts alleged in Lubbock’s third-party complaint as relevant to the resolution of the instant motions are summarized as follows.1 TBM established … the ESOP credit agreement by which TBM loaned funds to the ESOP to purchase the Sharma parties’ shares, TBM also represented, warranted, and covenanted to the ESOP that the “ESOP Loan satisfies the Exempt Loan Rules and qualifies

Torres v. Sampson County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 14, 2022

“E.T. qualifies for special education services under [IDEA] as a student with an Other Health Impairment (OHI).” … “This principle only applies, however, if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense clearly appear on the face of the complaint.” Id.

Thomas v. East Carolina University

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 21, 2023

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … Torbett also argues that ECU was “on notice” 13 that emotional distress damages were recoverable because it engaged in “intentional acts that clearly violate Title IX.” Jd.

Neil v. Warren County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2022

Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 336 n.3 (2009) (explaining that the New Hanover County Board of Education “is a county agency” possessing “governmental immunity”). … Significantly close “temporal proximity” between the protected activity and adverse action “is sufficient to establish a causal connection” between the two. Strothers v.

Gayhart v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2025

Plaintiff may disagree with Defendant’s conclusion as to Decedent's manner of death, but Defendant’s explanation clearly identifies the “basis in the insurance policy” for its decision. … He did write in his report that, if Decedent was playing Russian Roulette, “his death” would qualify as “‘a suicide.” DE 27-6 at 8.

Lewis v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2025

ruling “must be followed unless (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly … It notes “the parameters for what qualifies as . . . a payment are not clearly defined – i.e., a payment towards (whether in full or partial) the IRL or ITF7 Packages, payment in full to avoid foreclosure, or payment in

M.D. Russell Construction, Inc. v. Consolidated Staffing, Inc.

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

Upon removal of a state action to federal court, “[t]he burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is placed upon the party seeking removal.” Mulcahey v. … Consolidated argues that Russell Construction cannot establish a claim for conversion because it admits that it authorized each of its payments to Consolidated.

Brier Creek Integrated Pain & Spine PLLC v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 5, 2019

If the MAC denies the “redetermination,” the provider can seek “reconsideration” by a Qualified Independent Contractor (“QIC”). 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(c). Both of these review processes are overseen by CMS. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

North Carolina Green Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2022

Moreover, plaintiffs established “a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion [for a preliminary injunction] and the conduct asserted in the [amended] complaint.” Omega World Travel, Inc. v. … On August 1, 2022, the Board unanimously determined that the Green Party qualified as a new political party under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-96(a)(2). See IDE. 54, 54-1].

Pemble

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2026

Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, it is the plaintiff who has the burden of establishing a qualifying ownership interest both as a substantive element of the infringement claim . . . and as a necessary … The crafting of a logo, name, and marketing taglines is clearly work of the type for which Plaintiff was hired to perform. Avtec Sys., Inc., 21 F.3d at 571.

Melvin v. Social Security Administration

126 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2015

Dismissal also is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir.1996); see generally, 5B A. … Accordingly, for a disclosure to qualify as a “routine use”, the disclosure (1) must be compatible with the agency’s purpose in collecting the record, and (2) must be in accordance with the “routine uses” the agency has published

Matthews v. Herc Rentals, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 2023

Furthermore, specifics of the identity and conduct of comparators is necessary to establish “evidence that the employees ‘dealt with the same supervisor, [were] subject to the same standards and . . . engaged in the same … Appx. 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2020) (“To qualify as a comparator, there must be ‘enough common features between the individuals to allow for a meaningful comparison.’” (quoting Humphries v.

Loera v. Stellar HVAC, LLC

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

Clearly, decedent was not in a position of helpless peril under the persuasive reasoning of Mann. 4 While this statement sounds as hearsay, and is not relied upon in the court’s decision-making, defendant … The contract between Stellar and Antele plainly attempts to establish an indemnity regime which § 22B-1(a) prohibits.

Baines

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2026

Plaintiff’s “notices” do not clearly represent an amended complaint or a motion to amend. See Newton v. … “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service of process was effective.” Dingle, 2020 WL 4342212, at *2 (citing Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. 3d 249, 261 (D.

Guenther v. Dennis-Simmons Lumber Co.

246 F. 521 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 1917

another, by a recognition of his title.” [2] If the purchaser of the timber could, during the period given for cutting, by any act on his part, not brought home to the owner of the land, change the character of his entry, and qualified … Actual ouster is clearly not requisite, either to be presumed or proved.” In Clymer v. Dawkins, 3 How. 677 , 11 L.

Freeman v. HKA Enterprises of South Carolina, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2022

Thus, “[u]nder no aspect of the law did [the security officer] qualify as a process agent for defendant.” Id. at 149. … P. 4(i) (“At any time, before or after judgment, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly appears that material

Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc.

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

“The determination of whether a [worker] qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a mixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law.” Jammal v. Am. Fam. Ins. … Rather, plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to rely on the default ratio established by the CBA.

Pontones v. Los Tres Magueyes, Inc.

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

“These definitions broaden ‘the meaning of employee to cover some [workers] who might not qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency [or contract] law principles.’” Schultz v. … Hamad, 867 F.2d 804, 808 n.6 (4th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (noting “[e]ven if the businesses were within a corporate structure,” individual was still clearly an employer within the meaning of the FLSA because “he hired

Wright v. Hertford County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 8, 2024

Count one does not clearly state the capacity in which plaintiff is suing Superintendent Wright and Phillips. … established in order to be meaningful.”