Case law

Covington v. Randolph Hospital, Inc.

147 F. Supp. 3d 399 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 2015

Thus, even if the complaint clearly stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, its failure to request relief weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Collins v. Great Plains Oilfield Rental, L.L.C., No. … In order to establish such a claim, a plaintiff must plead facts to establish (1) unwelcome conduct; (2) based on the plaintiffs race; (3) that is sufficiently severe to alter the plaintiffs conditions of employment; and

SHIELDS v. GODFREY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for their conduct, provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a teasonable petson would have … Therefore, Defendant Moote is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

North Carolina Ex Rel. Haywood v. Barrington

256 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 2003

immunity applied. … As such, the court need not reach subsidiary questions of whether the Defendants are named in the proper capacity or whether they are entitled to qualified immunity, and Defendants motion for summary judgment will be granted

Southern Pride, Inc. v. Turbo Tek Enterprises, Inc.

117 F.R.D. 566 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 18, 1987

Venue, on the other hand, is more clearly directed at fairness and convenience to .the defendant.... … A second test, called the “licensing test”, requires more than “minimum contacts” to establish venue.

Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Administration

966 F. Supp. 1374 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 1997

Again, the FDCA does not reveal that Congress clearly intended to permit or prohibit reliance on evidence of actual use to establish intended use. … The court finds that § 352(r) clearly authorizes FDA to require restricted devices to bear the product’s established name and a statement of intended use.

Hall v. Celebrezze

239 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 19, 1965

Additionally, the Court finds great difficulty in understanding how the Secretary could qualify a person such as Mr. … Clearly, this testimony affords no basis for a finding that plaintiff’s condition was remediable, and thus not disabling under the Act.

MooreFORCE, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation

243 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2003

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1989, the North Carolina Legislature enacted the Highway Trust Fund Act, which established a fund for the expansion of U.S. … of an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Hicks v. Freeman

273 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 1967

Thereafter, if plaintiff qualified to grade two types of flue-cured tobacco, he was to receive a minimum of eight months’ pay for his work each market season. 3. … Plaintiff has failed to establish any right to continue to be compensated on the old basis of eight months’ wages for fewer than six months’ work on the tobacco markets. 3.

Thomas v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

898 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 3, 1995

The Act established a federally-funded state-administered program to supplement the nutritional needs of low income households. Id. § 2011. … The State appeared to waive any claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity in earlier pleadings.

CHRISP v. UNC CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 14, 2021

“The Fourth Circuit has not conclusively established whether a dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or for failure … entitled to that immunity.

Mullinax v. Radian Guaranty Inc.

199 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 25, 2002

Radian meets this requirement by identifying RE SPA, the federal statute under which Plaintiffs bring this suit, as the qualifying statute. … These cases, however, differ from the case at hand because they involved sovereign immunity issues with the United States as a defendant. Id. at 1040 ; see, e.g., Finn v.

Chandler v. Forsyth Technical Cmty. Coll.

294 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 15, 2018

In Chandler I , individual Defendants asserted qualified immunity for each of the claims against them in their individual capacities. Id. at *6. … This court accordingly considered each claim to determine: first, whether Plaintiff properly alleged a constitutional violation; and second, if a violation was properly alleged, whether the right was clearly established.

Spain v. City of Winston-Salem

199 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2002

Plaintiff does not contend that she has provided direct evidence of discrimination, but rather attempts to establish a prima facie case. … Other intermediate employment decisions may qualify as adverse employment actions depending on the circumstances. See id.

Umstead v. Durham Hosiery Mills, Inc.

578 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 1984

The Complaint sets out several transactions of securities purchases and notices to plaintiffs via the mails which might qualify as predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1). … Since neither Rule 10b-5 nor RICO contain express statute of limitations, the most clearly analogous state limitations apply. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 , 96 S.Ct. 1375 , 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976).

Sechrest v. United States

351 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 29, 1972

If it is a lump sum payment, it is clearly a lump sum of periodic payments. … The Commissioner has directed the Court’s attention to four cases which he contends support his position that any type of lump sum payment cannot qualify as periodic payments.

Potter v. Shoney's, Inc.

108 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 16, 1999

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff qualifies as a participant such that he has standing to bring the present action. … Therefore, the administrator clearly did not abuse his discretion in denying benefits.

Hill v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.

877 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2012

Finding no available positions for which Plaintiff qualified, Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment. (Id.). … Jan. 4, 2001) (finding that exempting the plaintiff from performing many of his essential functions was clearly not reasonable, and thus was not required by the ADA).

NICHOLSON v. ZIMMERMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 22, 2021

In particular, the Amended Complaint alleges: “At the time of the incidents at issue, [] Plaintiff had clearly established rights under the United States Constitution[]” to, inter alia, “be … “Defendants violated these clearly established rights in the ways described in summary form herein, and in ways that will be uncovered in discovery and at trial.” (Id., ¶ 51.)

KING v. DICKERSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, Officers Dickerson and Phillips are entitled to qualified immunity. IV. MOTIONS TO SEAL Defendants have filed two motions to seal [Doc.

Middleton v. Russell Group, Ltd.

924 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 12, 1996

. § 1166 (a)(4), a plan administrator must, within 30 days of the termination of employment of a covered employee, notify any qualified beneficiary of his or her COBRA rights. … Moreover, even where the federal courts agree on the proper legal analysis, the ultimate outcome turns on what a particular state has established as a statute of limitations.