Willis B. Hunt jr

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company's declaratory judgment action against Jo R. Miles seeking a ruling that a $1 million term life insurance policy (No. 41662599) on her late husband Dr. Laurence Miles was not in force at the time of his death or was void due to misrepresentations and unmet conditions. Mrs. Miles counterclaimed for benefits under the policy or fraud. The court granted Transamerica's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the policy required a signed application amendment confirming no replacement of the original policy and a statement of continued good health as conditions precedent to coverage, but these were never satisfied after Dr. Miles' cancer diagnosis became known, preventing delivery and activation of the new policy.

business & regulatory

Homeowners sued a law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for allegedly deceptive practices in collecting unpaid homeowners association assessments, including sending letters about liens filed on their properties and failing to include certain required notices. The court addressed multiple claims on cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing Counts One through Six after finding that the debt collection letters complied with FDCPA validation requirements, that liens could be filed before or with the letters without violating the statute, and that no additional judgment or original creditor notices were needed in this context. On Count Seven, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the firm violated the FDCPA by sending collection letters directly to represented homeowners without consent. The decision rested on the plain text of the FDCPA provisions and undisputed facts about the timing of liens, the content of notices, and the firm's knowledge of counsel representation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which Transportation Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that its general liability policy provided no coverage or duty to defend former Tronitec employees (the FEI Defendants) against lawsuits alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of loyalty, conversion, fraud, and RICO violations committed while preparing to launch a competing business. The court granted the insurer's summary judgment motion in part and denied the FEI Defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the underlying claims did not potentially fall within the policy's "advertising injury" coverage for misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business. The decision rested on a comparison of the complaint allegations and policy language under Georgia insurance law, concluding that the alleged conduct occurred before the policy period or did not involve advertising offenses, while also denying reimbursement of defense costs already paid under a prior agreement that lacked such a provision.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this diversity action, Georgia landowners sued CSX Transportation, a railroad holding surface easements on their property, along with telecom companies, alleging that CSX unjustly profited by allowing Williams Communications to install fiber optic cables under the easements without the landowners' permission or compensation. The plaintiffs asserted claims against CSX for unjust enrichment, interference with subsurface rights, negligence, and punitive damages, and sought removal of the cables. The district court granted CSX's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the claims failed as a matter of law. The court reasoned that O.C.G.A. § 46-5-1 and related statutes authorize telephone companies to place lines along railroad rights of way via eminent domain or contract, and precedent such as Tompkins v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. establishes that railroads incur no liability to servient landowners when they permit such use. The court noted that Williams possessed eminent domain authority, so CSX's decision to proceed by agreement rather than condemnation did not expose it to liability.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between competing wood preservative manufacturers, with Hickson Corporation alleging that Northern Crossarm Co. and its president violated the Lanham Act and related state laws by sending an advertisement to retailers that highlighted potential health risks of CCA-treated wood and referenced Hickson's prior deposition admissions about injuries. Hickson obtained a preliminary injunction and later sent a letter to its customers describing the suit and injunction, prompting a counterclaim from defendants for libel and tortious interference. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Hickson's claims, finding that the advertisement's statements were based on accurate information from court documents and that providing those documents to media outlets in response to inquiries did not constitute prohibited publication or misleading advertising. It also granted summary judgment to Hickson on the counterclaim. Other pending motions regarding contempt and modification of the injunction were denied or deemed moot.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs challenging the conversion of their whole life insurance certificates by defendant Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, a fraternal benefit society, alleging state law claims including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence. The defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Problem Resolution Procedure in its constitution, which requires informal negotiations, mediation, and binding arbitration for disputes between the society and its members. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act, that the claims were arbitrable, and that plaintiffs had failed to pursue the required procedure before filing suit. The court rejected arguments that the arbitration provision was vague, ambiguous, unconscionable, or that state arbitration law should apply instead.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, a nonprofit environmental group, sued the U.S. Forest Service and its regional forester under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives when approving four timber sales on national forests in North Carolina and Virginia. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the sales, one of which was set to begin logging imminently. The court granted the temporary restraining order for the Cuba timber sale, finding that commencing logging would cause immediate and irreparable harm through the cutting of over 60-year-old forest and road construction. It denied the motion to transfer venue, concluding that the Northern District of Georgia was the only venue where the entire case could be resolved efficiently because the final agency decisions occurred there and the plaintiff's forum choice should not be disturbed absent strong reasons to the contrary. The case was reassigned to another judge due to the presiding judge's ongoing criminal trial.

environmentprocedure

This case concerns Delta Air Lines' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Air Line Pilots Association and certain pilots to halt alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions during contract negotiations. The court made findings that pilots had substantially reduced overtime requests since August 2000, resulting in hundreds of canceled flights and millions in losses to Delta, driven by an email campaign encouraging refusals of overtime that the union leadership did not support. The opinion analyzes the four-factor test for injunctive relief, the RLA's prohibition on self-help like slowdowns before mediation is exhausted, and distinctions in evidence regarding ALPA's involvement versus individual actions, while addressing potential application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court limited its consideration to the overtime refusal claims and denied relief as to other alleged activities due to insufficient evidence.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1998 Georgia Supreme Court election in which judicial candidate George Weaver and supporting voters challenged enforcement of Canon 7(B)(1)(d) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct and related JQC rules. Weaver's campaign materials were reviewed by a JQC special committee, which issued a confidential cease-and-desist request and later a public statement accusing him of false and deceptive statements without additional notice or hearing. The court granted summary judgment in part to the plaintiffs, ruling that Canon 7(B)(1)(d) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because its broad prohibition on misleading speech is overbroad and chills protected political expression in judicial campaigns. The court upheld Canon 7(B)(2) and JQC Rule 27, finding they served compelling interests in judicial integrity without the same constitutional defects.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

Beverly Norman sued for review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits application, alleging major depression with psychotic features. The ALJ concluded at step four that she could perform her past medium work as a laundry checker and assistant, after obtaining consultative exams without first contacting her treating physician. The court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(f) requires every reasonable effort to obtain evidence from the claimant's own medical sources before ordering consultative examinations, and newly obtained evidence from the treating physician was favorable to the claim.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

Sengchanh, a legal permanent resident from Laos convicted in 1993 of assault with intent to kill and other crimes, was ordered deported and held in INS custody for over three years after finishing his sentence because neither Laos nor Thailand would accept his repatriation. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the extended detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The court found it had jurisdiction and ruled that the Eighth Amendment claim failed because detention pending deportation is not punishment. On due process, the court determined that three years of detention raised substantive concerns and remanded the matter to the District Director for a prompt decision on release or continued detention based on factors including danger to the community, flight risk, and likelihood of deportation.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involves Kimberly Stevenson's application for Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income, denied by the Commissioner after an ALJ found she was not disabled despite documented back problems and depression. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation for plain error, as no objections were filed, and adopted it in full. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for calculation and payment of benefits. The reasoning centered on the uncontested psychological evaluation rating the plaintiff's work-related abilities as 'fair' (defined as seriously limited but not precluded), combined with vocational expert testimony that no jobs existed for someone with those limitations, meaning the Commissioner failed to meet step five of the disability evaluation process.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case concerned a priority dispute among the United States, judgment creditor KS Financial Group, and widow Judye Schulman over renewal commissions owed to the estate of deceased insurance salesman Jack Schulman. The court granted partial summary judgment to the United States on its secured federal tax liens for 1991 and 1992 joint liabilities, to KS Financial on its perfected Texas judgment lien over the unsecured 1995 and 1996 tax claims, and ruled that the widow's pending year's support claim was subordinate to both the secured tax liens and the judgment. Core reasoning applied the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 and Insolvency Statute, finding that KS Financial's lien was choate under Texas law and thus took precedence over unsecured government claims pursuant to United States v. Romani, while the secured liens retained first priority.

taxesfederal powerprocedurefamily law

In Lamb v. Turbine Designs, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that the defendant misappropriated their proprietary aircraft modification design and sought injunctive relief based on state-law claims including violations of trade secrets acts, conversion, and tortious interference. The defendant moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, finding that the alleged tort did not occur in Georgia because the injury affected only out-of-state residents and the defendant's contacts with the FAA in Atlanta for a Supplemental Type Certificate application did not establish jurisdiction. The court further held that the government contacts doctrine barred jurisdiction based solely on interactions with a federal agency, with no applicable fraud exception, and that due process minimum contacts were absent.

procedurebusiness & regulatorypropertytorts & liability