Case law

Future Representatives v. Bestwall LLC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 2022

Appellants appealed arguing the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to enter the Orders and the Debtor failed to meet its burden establishing the elements necessary for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. … The Bankruptcy Court’s analysis clearly articulated and applied the correct legal standard when analyzing this factor.

Hartnett v. Physicians Choice Laboratory Services, LLC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2021

However, my thought is that the Court gave us two weeks anticipating the difficulty of scheduling a qualified neutral on such short notice. … It was not incumbent on either the Court or the United States to interfere with Smith’s clearly expressed desire to pursue a settlement without counsel.

Speaks v. Health Systems Management, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2022

Speaks is not entitled to pursue her claims based on a clearly false alternate reality that denies the very existence of the COVID-19 pandemic which has left millions dead or the numerous vaccines which have been approved … The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); Cowgill v. First Data Techs., Inc., 41 F.4th 370 (4th Cir. 2022).

Darnell v. Wyndham Capital Mortgage, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2021

Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688, 694 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Mitigation expenses do not qualify as actual injuries when the harm is not imminent.”)). … And while the Court declines to speculate on the kinds of factual allegations that could serve as “more,” Plaintiff does not allege anything more than the “mere compromise” of his PII, which is clearly insufficient under

North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Dula

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

The Providers argue that the Court should only decline to adopt the M&R if it is “clearly erroneous.” In support of their argument, they rely on Fed. R. Civ. … No. 1-3, the Court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the Providers’ claims qualify as a recovery of benefits.

Wagner v. Ashline

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 10, 2020

Also, section 116 “sets no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.” Fina Oil, 123 F.3d at 1473. … While Plaintiff has not specifically alleged that she and Ashline were “partners,” Plaintiff’s allegations of a “joint venture” together with her allegations of a resulting fiduciary relationship are sufficient to establish

Wagner v. Ashline

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

No. 34), Plaintiff has the burden of establishing clear and convincing evidence to support her claim that she is a co-inventor of the patented invention at issue. … Also, Section 116 “sets no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.”

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

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

Where, as here, another established tort independently establishes a UDTPA violation, and the alleged misrepresentations merely form part of a broader claim that the defendant engaged in multiple unfair and deceptive behaviors … Groner’s testimony established a per-customer profit margin and deducted the customer expenses (clearly analogous to transportation costs) associated with servicing customer accounts. Moreover, Mr.

Redmon v. FlexSol Packaging Corporation

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2021

Rather, a plaintiff must show only that he was qualified for the job and that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations.” Id. (citing Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 515–16 (4th Cir. 2006)). … The structure and grounds for Redmon’s retaliation claim are more clearly stated with respect to his claims of retaliation based on his complaints regarding racial issues.

United States v. Real Property in Mecklenburg County, NC

814 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 21, 1993

“[A] ruling on probable cause may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. … This express reservation of sovereign immunity has been applied to law enforcement officers effecting seizure for forfeiture. 49 Further, *483 “the choice to proceed or not to proceed [with litigation to effect a forfeiture

Middleton

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026

Every project has multiple competitors seeking to get the work if they are qualified, and the specifications and scopes of work vary for each project. (Id.) … Therefore, as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the delay in seeking injunctive relief precludes the Court from concluding that Plaintiffs have clearly established the immediate irreparable harm required to issue a preliminary

Starsail Adventures, LLC v. Iredell County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2024

When faced with a motion to remand, a party seeking removal to federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Ellenburg v. … Cases “arising out of the same factual circumstances do not qualify as parallel if they differ in scope or involve different remedies.” Id.

Conner v. Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 24, 2023

Md. 1982) (“Plaintiffs’ good faith estimate of the size of the class clearly is sufficient to establish numerosity.”). … The Court also concludes that the Plaintiff’s counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally capable of conducting litigation.

Frost v. AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2023

Rather, the plaintiff ... is the [qualified representative] of the estate, who acts ‘in the capacity of a trustee or agent of the beneficiary of the estate.’”) (quoting Boomer v. Caraway, 116 N.C. … Thus, the survivorship claim is clearly encompassed by the wrongful death statute and must be dismissed.

Jordan v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 29, 2024

However, this request for counsel must be “unambiguous[],” that is, the suspect “must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances … A witness who has been qualified as an expert may offer opinion testimony under specified circumstances. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Anderson v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

“In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a claimant must provide evidence of a medically determinable impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and adjustment to other work.” Flesher v. … Whiteman’s notes from May 28, 2019, confirms that Plaintiff suffers from diabetes mellitus; however, they also clearly support the Defendant’s argument of diabetic mismanagement and noncompliance. See (Doc.

Williams v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 7, 2021

Defendant’s objections clearly set forth specific objections to the M&R which will be reviewed by this Court de novo. … A fail-safe class is one that “is defined so that whether a person qualifies as a member [of the class] depends on whether the person has a valid claim.” Adair, 764 F.3d at 360 n.9 (quoting Messner v.

Hanton v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

As a general matter, “a plea does not qualify as intelligent unless a criminal defendant first received ‘real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of … However, appellate counsel may render deficient performance by failing to raise “issues [that] are clearly stronger than those presented.” United States v. Mason, 774 F.3d 824, 828-29 (4th Cir. 2014).

Little v. Hanes Industries

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2019

Rather, a plaintiff must show only that he was qualified for the job and that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations. Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 515–16 (4th Cir. 2006).” … The structure and grounds for Little’s retaliation claim are not clearly stated and, as noted, he has not presented any argument in his response brief regarding this claim.

Bingaman v. Berryhill

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 22, 2019

To establish entitlement to benefits, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that she was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Bowen v. … Next, the ALJ must determine if the mental impairment is severe, and if so, whether it qualifies as a listed impairment. Id. § 404.1520a(d).