MEMORANDUM OPINION (Cross Motions for Summary Judgment) HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge. Michael A. Bryner ("Bryner") brought this action against his employer, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company ("DuPont"), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461, challenging its denial of accidental death benefits. Bryner's claim arose from his wife's death while under the care of her treating physician. The dispute turns on the definition of a "covered...
MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN A. GIBNEY, JR., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 89, 91). 1 Plaintiff Emmett Jafari ("Jafari") seeks damages for common law defamation and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") from Defendant Old Dominion Transit Management Company (d/b/a The Greater Richmond Transit Company) ("GRTC"). The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal...
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before on the Court on pro se appellant Andrew Chien's ("Chien" or "Appellant") appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Huennekens, B.J.) ("Bankruptcy Court"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises from a July 27, 2012 order of...
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, SANCTIONS AND COSTS (Docket No. 1593)("MOTION FOR FEES, SANCTIONS AND COSTS") filed by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") against Kolon Industries, Inc. ("Kolon"). For the reasons set forth below, the MOTION FOR FEES, SANCTIONS AND COSTS will be granted in part, denied in part, and taken under advisement in part, pending further briefing. BACKGROUND After...
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Determination that Certain Communications are not Protected by Attorney-Client or Work Product Privileges) HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge. In this tax evasion and fraud case, the United States has filed a Motion for Determination that Certain Communications are not Protected by Attorney-Client or Work Product Privileges (ECF No. 44). It presents a number of issues about the scope of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in the context of alleged crimes...
MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN A. GIBNEY, JR., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss. 1 The Court previously directed the plaintiffs to particularize their complaint in conformance with certain directions, as explained in the Court's Order. ( See Dk. No. 18.) The Court additionally stated that the plaintiffs' failure to comply strictly with the requirements set forth in that Order would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. See...
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Motion to Dismiss Count I) HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge. The United States has charged Arash Moazzeni ("Moazzeni") with tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud, and bank fraud, among other charges. Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment alleges that he unlawfully evaded payment of taxes during a 12-year period. Since much of the conduct alleged in Count 1 is beyond the applicable 6 year limitation period, Moazzeni moves to dismiss that Count as unconstitutionally...
MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. This patent infringement suit presents the increasingly common, but always vexing jurisdictional question whether plaintiff, the assignee of the patent in issue, possesses "all substantial rights" 1 to the patent, such that it has standing to sue putative infringers. More precisely, the question is whether plaintiff Suffolk Technologies, LLC ("Suffolk"), the owner by assignment of the patent in issue, has standing to sue infringers where,...
OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is currently before the Court on several motions to dismiss: (1) Defendants Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. ("Greenhorne"), Thomas Copeland ("Copeland"), Evelyn Jones, and Daniel Jones's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Local Rule 7 (Docket No. 7); (2) Defendant City of Chesapeake, Virginia's ("City") Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Docket No....
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, District Judge. The issue before the Court is the proper amount of restitution to be awarded to the victims of defendant Howard R. Shmuckler ("Shmuckler"), who pleaded guilty to six counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 on April 10, 2012. The government argues that $1,848,279.00 is the appropriate amount; Shmuckler contends that the Sixth Amendment limits restitution to $68,970.00, the amount established by the facts alleged in the...
MEMORANDUM OPINION ANTHONY J. TRENGA, District Judge. I. Overview On April 26, 2011, a nine month old child, referred to in this case as C.P., was taken to the hospital with injuries later determined to have resulted from "shaken-baby" syndrome. She died from those injuries on April 28, 2011. At the time C.P. was injured she was in the custody of defendant Amy Hunter ("Hunter" or "Ms. Hunter"), who was providing child care at her residence at the Quantico Marine Base in Quantico, Virginia....
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff George H. Seitz's ("Seitz") MOTION TO REMAND (Docket No. 19). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action concerns a piece of real property located in the County of Hanover, Commonwealth of Virginia, known as 16297 Washington Highway, Doswell, Virginia 23047. On June 9, 2008, 1 Seitz entered into a mortgage loan with...
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's PETITION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (Docket No. 113). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 26, 2010, Eileen McAfee, a resident of Henrico County, received a request from a friend in Powhatan County to assess the circumstances of a dog which the friend thought was in distress. The two...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the court upon the Defendants Joint Motion to Strike Non-Statutory Aggravating Factor No. 2, ECF No. 497, and Joint Motion to Strike Non-Statutory Aggravating Factors No. 3, 5, and 6 and Motion for a Bill of Particulars as to Non-Statutory Factor No. 4, ECF No. 502 ("Motions"), filed on September 17, 2012. The United States opposed the Motions in its Consolidated Response ("Response"), filed on October...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge. Before the Court is the issue of whether the equitable defense of laches should apply in this case. The Court initially styled its ruling from the bench as a response to a renewed motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law on Laches from the Defendants. However, in reviewing the trial transcript, the Court notes that Defendants made no such Rule 50(a) motion regarding laches. The Plaintiff, however, did make a Rule 50(a) motion...
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 26) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted. BACKGROUND Jerel Shaw ("Shaw") filed a Complaint 1 with three counts (each labeled a "Cause of Action" in the Complaint) all of which are predicated on alleged discrimination against him by his employer, Aramark Management Services LP ("Aramark"), in...
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES C. CACHERIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Michael Han ("Mr. Han") and Envion, Inc.'s ("Envion") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Strike [Dkt. 41] (the "Motion to Strike") and Partial Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 45] (the "Motion to Dismiss"). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Strike and deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I. Background This case arises out of allegations that Defendants...
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, District Judge. The issue of scienter has arisen in the defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, specifically in categories (1) and (3) of the defendant's requests for production, which requests have been denied. See Def.'s Mot. to Compel Produc. of Docs, and Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. No. 66 (original), Dkt. No. 99 (redacted)] ("Def.'s Mot. to Compel") at 2-3; Order of October 1, 2012 [Dkt. No. 80] (granting in part and denying in part...
MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. This federal election law declaratory judgment case presents two unusual questions: (i) Whether a plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that certain advertisements to be published in the election season do not trigger the Federal Election Campaign Act's 1 ("FECA") disclosure requirements meets Article Ill's standing and ripeness requirements where, as here, the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") deadlocked on the advertisements and...
OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant GuideOne Specialty Mutual Insurance Company's ("GuideOne") motion for partial summary judgment as to Count II of the Complaint and motion in limine to exclude alleged evidence of bad faith or to bifurcate trial. Docket Nos. 21, 33. For the reasons outlined below, GuideOne's motion in limine to exclude evidence of bad faith or to bifurcate trial is GRANTED with respect to bifurcation....
