Case law

BOONE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2024

As previously established, “[P]laintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination” at this stage of the case. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 515. … [The plaintiff] maintains that she was clearly more qualified[ and] more experience[d] . . . than the individuals who were selected and promoted.”

TAEKMAN v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2023

Moreover, any such motion should clearly address why permitting such discovery, including any requested deposition, qualifies as proportional given the “significant restraints … The district court should exercise its discretion, however, only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit

NAPCO, INC. v. LANDMARK TECHNOLOGY A, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2021

Noerr-Pennington immunity Landmark next contends that the communications within its demand letter are protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity. … To overcome this presumptive immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant's instigation of litigation was merely a “sham.” Prof'l Real Estate Invs., Inc. v.

WILLIS v. SEABOLT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2022

Defendants then proceeded with additional arguments including grounds for dismissal based on qualified immunity. (Id. at 8-22.) … The movant beats the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, Celotex Corp. v.

BNT AD AGENCY, LLC v. CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2019

(Doc. 77) ¶ 13), fails to establish direct evidence of discrimination because the Woods’ financial statement, provided to the City, clearly shows that the City would occupy a second, not … The subordination of the City’s lien to third position in these loans was made pursuant to NCHFA Qualified Allocation Plan, an established agency plan, which required the City to take

DAYWALT v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2021

stroke in January and March 2016, respectively (see Docket Entry 14 at 6-7 (citing Tr. 269-73, 280, 298-99, 344, 364, 376, 401, 408, 412, 414, 461, 476, 486, 490-91, 494)); however, the ALJ clearly … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established grounds for relief.

SACKS HOLDINGS, INC. v. GRIN NATURAL USA LIMITED

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 9, 2025

does not qualify for sealing. … Defendants likewise fail to establish harmlessness.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc.

268 F.R.D. 255 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 17, 2010

2007’ ” (id.), the Court might agree that Plaintiffs should have a chance to employ additional devices (including perhaps a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition) to seek out more factual information because such a response might well qualify … McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1114 (E.D.N.C.1984) ("[T]he burden of showing that the requested discovery is not relevant to the issues in this litigation is clearly on the party resisting discovery.”); Flora, 81 F.R.D. at 578

COWAN v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2023

§ 90-21.12 must qualify as an expert under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702. See Wood, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 842. … Here, the Court finds that both of Plaintiff’s experts are qualified under Rule 702.

PETERSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2025

Plaintiff has thus failed to establish good cause under Rule 16(b). See Faulconer, 808 F. … Those proposed claims thus qualify as futile.

SACKS HOLDINGS, INC. v. GRIN NATURAL USA LIMITED

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2025

Moreover, the qualifier itself does not appear confidential. … Defendants have not established, however, that the existence of the miscalculation in Saitz’s Initial Report qualifies as confidential. (See Docket Entries 133, 143, 170-1.)

BIRTCH

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2026

As part of this review, the Court may anticipate affirmative defenses that clearly appear on the face of the complaint. Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. … Stat § 1-52 (establishing three-year statute of limitations for personal injury).

MARAVEL v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-27.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

WILBANKS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2021

‘The Supplemental Secutity Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … Id. at 179.4 Step four then requires the AL] to assess whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the clatmant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

WANG v. DENG

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 2024

28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts possess jurisdiction over “civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and [the parties qualify … Additionally, Plaintiff and Defendant both qualify as foreign nationals. (See Docket Entry 3 at 1.)

Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc.

908 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 1995

[I]t is not necessary that a group be restricted by size in order to qualify as ‘limited’ under section 552.”). … Stat. § 78A-56(f) which establishes a two-year limitations period. See Andrews v. Fitzgerald, 823 F.Supp. 356, 365 (M.D.N.C.1993). 6 .

DUKES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2025

“These regulations establish a ‘sequential evaluation process’ to determine whether a claimant is disabled.” Id. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

BLACKFORD-WEBB v. GLOBAL SCHOLARS ACADEMY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 3, 2025

at 1-17), which references, from context, clearly do not signify GSA, the actual defendant in this case. … A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes factual contentions that are clearly baseless or it describes fantastic and delusional scenarios.

Garrett v. R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.

81 F.R.D. 25 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 27, 1978

Because of the interests involved in this case, plaintiffs’ attempt to mount an across-the-board attack is clearly overbroad. … Rather they have relied mostly on conclusory allegations to establish their contentions of across-the-board sex discrimination.

BAKER v. REGAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2024

“[I]f the actual date of receipt is [established], that date governs.” Id. … CONCLUSION The Complaint qualifies as untimely and the Amendment Motions qualify as futile.