Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Court scrutinized Forest Service NEPA compliance by granting TRO against timber sales and ordered fresh review of prolonged immigration detention under due process standards. SOUTHERN APPALACH. BIODIVERS. v.… ↗ Sengchanh v. Lanier ↗
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
Opinion followed Eleventh Circuit Camden I precedent to evaluate attorneys' fees in a large securities settlement using percentage-of-fund and Johnson factors. Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund… ↗
In this securities class action, plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola and its executives violated federal securities laws by artificially inflating share prices, leading to damages for shareholders upon revelation of the truth. Following eight years of litigation, the parties settled for $137.5 million, which the court has approved. The opinion evaluates class counsel's application for 26.04% of the settlement fund in fees plus expenses, and lead plaintiffs' expense reimbursements. The court granted the lead plaintiffs' expenses as reasonable and, applying the Eleventh Circuit's Camden I precedent, assessed the reasonableness of the fee request using a percentage-of-the-common-fund approach, Johnson factors, and considerations for large settlements to prevent excessive awards.
The case concerned plaintiff Theodore Jordan's claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Equifax, SLM, and Sallie Mae after he became a victim of identity theft involving a fraudulent student loan. SLM originated the loan based on stolen information, reported it to credit agencies, and the debt reappeared on Jordan's Equifax credit report under new account numbers even after initial deletions following his disputes and submission of a police report and affidavit. The loan's presence affected a mortgage application, though it ultimately closed on Jordan's desired terms. Before the court were the defendants' motions for summary judgment, which the court evaluated by viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant plaintiff and reviewing the handling of automated consumer dispute verifications and fraud notifications.
This case concerned whether a debt collection law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing a lawsuit to collect a credit card debt in the wrong county. The plaintiff alleged the defendant sued in Fulton County when she resided in Gwinnett County, breaching the FDCPA's venue requirements. The court denied the defendant's summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's partial summary judgment, ruling that the defendant failed to establish a bona fide error defense because it did not adhere to its own address verification procedures. The decision hinged on the undisputed facts showing the suit was filed in an improper judicial district under 15 U.S.C. § 1692i.
The case involves plaintiff Pinckney, who alleges he was wrongly identified as a co-signer on a loan due to forged documents, resulting in negative credit reporting by SLM Financial Corp. and Sallie Mae; after disputing the entry with credit agencies and the lender, the defendants allegedly failed to properly investigate or correct the information. Plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for violations of the furnisher's investigation duties, along with state-law claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, and libel. The court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint's allegations, accepted as true, adequately state a claim under FCRA section 1681s-2(b) and that the tort claims survive preemption and sufficiency challenges at the pleading stage.
In this trademark infringement case, Georgia-based plaintiff Barton Southern sued New York-based defendant Manhole Barrier Systems (MBS) and JFC over alleged infringement of its LOCKDOWN-LOCKDRY trademarks via domain names and websites advertising competing manhole security products. MBS moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue, arguing it had no meaningful contacts with Georgia. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction under Georgia's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause, because MBS's website was passive and not directed at Georgia, its limited prior purchases from the plaintiff were unrelated to the infringement claims, and no other Georgia activities were alleged. Finding venue improper, the court denied the motion to dismiss but granted transfer to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The case involved Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals suing Herbal Health Products and related defendants for trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and Georgia law, claiming that the defendants' Stamina-Pro dietary supplement copied the STAMINA-RX mark, hexagonal blue tablets, clear bottle with white cap, and label design of Hi-Tech's Stamina-Rx product for sexual performance enhancement. Hi-Tech moved for a preliminary injunction to halt sales and certain representations by the defendants. The court denied the motion, holding that Hi-Tech did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because it failed to demonstrate actual consumer confusion or sufficient similarity between the products, and that Hi-Tech had not established irreparable harm due to its delay in seeking relief and evidence that its sales remained strong.
