DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSCO CHARLOTTE, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:18CV247 ) BRANDY LEE COMER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OSTEEN, JR., District Judge Currently before this court are Plaintiff’s motion to remand, (Doc. 8), and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff asks this court to remand the case to state court pursuant to a forum selection clause in the credit agreement between Plaintiff and certain Defendants. Defendants move to dismiss certain of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, this court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to remand should be denied because Defendants did not waive their right to remove this dispute to federal court. This court further finds that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein. Case 1:18-cv-00247-WO-LPA Document 20 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 31 I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Sysco Charlotte, LLC sells food and restaurant supplies. (Complaint (“Compl.”) (Doc. 2) ¶ 1.) Defendants are individuals and corporations involved in the restaurant business. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant Comer Khori LLC (“Debtor”) took out a line of credit with Plaintiff, secured by certain assets of Debtor. (See Defs.’ Not. of Removal (“Removal Not.”) (Doc. 1) at 38; Doc. 8-1.)1 This line was personally guaranteed by Defendants Brandy Lee Comer and Fareed Al-Khori (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). (See Compl. Ex. B (Doc. 2-2).)2 Defendants purchased food and other supplies for their restaurant business from Plaintiff using the line of credit. (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶¶ 7–9.) The sales included “food purchased 1 All citations in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to documents filed with the court refer to the page numbers located at the bottom right-hand corner of the documents as they appear on CM/ECF. 2 The guarantee attached to Defendants’ notice of removal is identical to the document attached to the Complaint. (Compare Removal Not. (Doc. 1) at 38, with Compl. Ex. B (Doc. 2-2).) This guarantee appears to be dated October 2, 2010, lists the trade name “Iron Hen Café,” and is signed by Defendants Comer and Al- Khori. Plaintiff has also filed a copy of a different guarantee dated April 20, 2016 that lists the trade name “Fresh Local Good Food Group,” but this guarantee is signed only by Defendant Comer. (See Doc. 8-2.) Each guarantee lists the legal name of the company as Comer Khori LLC. To the extent relevant to this Memorandum Opinion and Order, this court will refer to the Iron Hen Café guarantee that is signed by each Individual Defendant. - 2 - Case 1:18-cv-00247-WO-LPA Document 20 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 31 under the Federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act”, or PACA. (Id. ¶ 10.) According to the Complaint, the Individual Defendants are the managing members of Debtor and each of the following entities: Comer-Khori, LLC3; Ferrell Group LLC; Murray-Comer- Khori, LLC; HJHN Properties, LLC; and Barn 3203, LLC (collectively, the “LLC Defendants”). (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) The credit agreement4 between Plaintiff and Debtor includes the following provision: The parties agree to designate the federal and state courts of North Carolina as the exclusive place of venue and jurisdiction for any dispute between them; and Customer waives any right Customer may have to transfer or change venue regarding Customer’s obligations to Sysco. Applicant and guarantors agree to waive exemptions from execution and agree 3 Although Plaintiff appears to refer to Debtor and “Comer- Khori, LLC” interchangeably, (see, e.g., Pl.’s Br. Supp. Mot. to Remand (“Pl.’s Remand Br.”) (Doc. 10) at 3), the Complaint lists these entities as separate Defendants. The credit agreement and account statement each use the name “Comer Khori LLC” (d/b/a Fresh Local Good Food Group), (see Docs. 2-1, 8-1), and this court finds no evidence in the record to suggest any involvement by a “Comer-Khori, LLC.” 4 The document is entitled “Terms, Conditions & Security Agreement,” but the agreement refers to itself as the “Credit Agreement” and sets forth payment terms and procedures. (See Doc. 8-1.) The agreement also grants a security interest as collateral. (Id.) This court will refer to the agreement as the “credit agreement” throughout, while recognizing that it also incorporates an agreement regarding security for extensions of credit. - 3 - Case 1:18-cv-00247-WO-LPA Document 20 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 31 that venue shall be proper in any forum selected by Sysco. (Doc. 8-1. (emphasis added).) The personal guarantee contains a similar forum selection clause.5 (Compl. Ex. B (Doc. 2-2).) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have breached the credit agreement by failing to pay and that Defendants have “appropriated the proceeds of the PACA food to their own use.”6 (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 15.) Plaintiff brings the following claims: 5 The clause states, in relevant part: The parties choose the law of the state specified in the Customer Agreement to govern all aspects of this guaranty and . designate the federal and state courts of that state as the exclusive place of venue and jurisdiction for any dispute between them, and guarantor waives any right they might [or] may have to transfer or change venue regarding guarantor’s obligations to SYSCO. (See Compl. Ex. B (Doc. 2-2).) For purposes of analyzing the motion to remand, this court finds that the forum selection clause in the credit agreement is broader and that, if the credit agreement clause does not compel remand, neither will the guarantee’s forum selection clause. 6 Specifically, PACA requires that merchants who purchase food from suppliers and sell to the public hold sale proceeds in trust “until full payment of the sums owing in connection with such transactions has been received by such unpaid suppliers, sellers, or agents.” 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2); see also R Best Produce, Inc. v. Shulman-Rabin Mktg. Corp., 467 F.3d 238, 241–42 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The purpose of the trust is to increase the legal protection for unpaid sellers and suppliers of perishable agricultural commodities until full payment of sums due have been received by them.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). - 4 - Case 1:18-cv-00247-WO-LPA Document 20 Filed 03/26/19 Page 4 of 31 account stated; breach of contract; breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; fraud; constructive fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; conversion; and unfair or deceptive trade practices. (Id. ¶¶ 18–46.) Plaintiff also argues that the Individual Defendants are personally liable for the acts of Debtor and the LLC Defendants based on both piercing the corporate veil and on the individual Defendants’ personal guarantee. (Id. ¶¶ 47–49.) Plaintiff originally filed suit in the District Court of Cabarrus County, and Defendant Brandy Lee Comer later removed the action to this court as a federal-question case. (See Removal Not. (Doc. 1).) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand,7 (Doc. 8), and a brief in support of that motion, (Pl.’s Br. 7 This case was removed to federal court on March 27, 2018, (see Removal Not. (Doc. 1)), and Plaintiff filed its motion to remand on April 26, 2018. Therefore, this court finds that the motion to remand was timely filed within the 30-day period specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This court further finds that Plaintiff has not waived its right to seek remand. When “a party undertakes affirmative action in the federal district court, she has acquiesced in the federal court's jurisdiction and waived objection to the removal.” Lanier v. Am. Bd. of Endodontics, 843 F.2d 901, 904 (6th Cir. 1988). However, a district court has “broad discretion” to decide whether a waiver has occurred. Id. at 905. Here, because Plaintiff has merely responded to the motion to dismiss and filed other administrative motions, this court finds that Plaintiff has not acquiesced to jurisdiction and has not waived the right to seek remand. See Lapoint v. Mid- Atl. Settlement Servs, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2003) (“[M]erely engaging in offensive or defensive litigation . does not forfeit the right to a remand.”). - 5 - Case 1:18-cv-00247-WO-LPA Document 20 Filed 03/26/19 Page 5 of 31 Supp. Mot. to Remand (“Pl.’s Remand Br.”) (Doc. 10).) Defendants filed a response objecting to remand. (See Doc. 17.) Defendants also moved to dismiss certain claims in the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (Doc. 5), and submitted a brief in support of that motion, (Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Br.”) (Doc. 7).) Plaintiff responded opposing the motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), and Defendants did not file a reply. II. MOTION TO REMAND A. Standard of Review “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is placed upon the party seeking removal.” Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). Out of “[d]ue regard for the rightful independence of state governments . [federal courts must] scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined.” Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 (1934). Matters can be removed to federal court only when they could have been brought in federal court in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). For example, federal courts have jurisdiction over any case that implicates a question of federal law, and such a case can therefore generally be removed to federal court.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions
    An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions Prepared by: Emily Kirby, Sarah Long, and Sonal Raja University of North Carolina School of Law Immigration and Human Rights Policy Clinic Faculty Advisor: Deborah Weissman May 5, 2010 An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions Emily Kirby Deborah M. Weissman Sonal Raja Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law Sarah Long Director of Clinical Programs UNC‐CH Law Students http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/clinical programs/foreignlanguageinterpretationproblemsnc.pdf ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8 PART ONE: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Access to the Courts for Non‐English Speakers .............. 10 I. Federal Law ........................................................................................................................... 10 A. Federal Criminal Case Law ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The
    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; LYNNE LITT, a/k/a Lynne Neufes; ABC HOLDING COMPANY; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; RICHARD N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT, Defendants-Appellants, ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED PRESS; THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS; CBS BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; CABLE NEWS No. 97-2492 NETWORK, INCORPORATED; GANNETT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; THE HEARST CORPORATION; KING WORLD PRODUCTIONS, INCORPORATED; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED; THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; THE NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INCORPORATED; THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY; THE RADIO-TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION; THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS; INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS; EDITORS, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION; INTERNATIONAL MASS RETAIL ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM E. LEE; JOHN DEMOTT; ROBERT ELLIS SMITH; MIKE ROSEN; ACCURACY IN MEDIA; MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER; ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION; SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, Amici Curiae. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; LYNNE LITT, a/k/a Lynne Neufes; ABC HOLDING COMPANY; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; RICHARD N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT, No. 97-2564 Defendants-Appellees, ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED PRESS; THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS; CBS BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED;
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Trial Judges'
    NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL JUDGES’ BENCH BOOK DISTRICT COURT VOLUME 1 FAMILY LAW 2019 Edition Chapter 3 Child Support In cooperation with the School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Cheryl D. Howell and Jan S. Simmons This chapter is one of ten chapters in North Carolina Trial Judges’ Bench Book, ISBN 978-1-56011-957-9. Preparation of this bench book was made possible by funding from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, as administered by the School of Government. Copyright © 2019 School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapter 3: Child Support Part 1. Liability and Amount / 1 Part 2. Procedure for Initial Child Support Orders / 109 Part 3. Modification of Child Support Orders / 193 Part 4. Enforcement of Child Support Orders / 241 Checklists Findings for Initial Child Support / 363 Findings for Modification of Support / 365 Findings for Attorney Fees / 365 blank TOC This page intentionally left blank Replacement 9/20/2018 chapter opening 3 TOC Chapter 3: Child Support Part 1. Liability and Amount I. Liability for Child Support . 3 D . Factors That May Justify Deviation . 59 A . Parents Are Primarily Liable for Support . .. 3 E . Procedure Upon Request for Deviation . 61 B . Grandparents Are Not Responsible for Support of a F . Findings Required When Court Allows a Request for Grandchild Except in Limited Circumstances . 5 Deviation . 62 C . Stepparents Are Not Responsible for Support of a G . Findings Required When Court Does Not Deviate or Stepchild Except in Limited Circumstances . 6 Denies a Request for Deviation .
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution in North Carolina
    ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA A New Civil Procedure Second Edition Editor Elizabeth P. Manley Assistant Editors Frank C. Laney, Lynn P. Roundtree, and Catherine Brohaugh Revised from the First Edition, edited by Jacqueline R. Clare Review Group of the ADR Book Committee (Joint Committee of the North Carolina Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section and the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission) Copyright © 2012 by the North Carolina Bar Foundation and the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission. Design & production by BW&A Books, Inc. Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of Congress Control Number: 2012945497 ISBN: 978-0-9858889-09 The first edition was originally published in 2003, and reprinted in 2005. The second edition was published in 2012 in both print and e-book formats. This graphic of a multi-door courthouse, designed by Bobby Gill of the North Carolina Bar Association, first appeared in June 1985 on the cover of Dispute Resolution, A Task Force Report by the North Carolina Bar Foundation. The design represents the integration of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures into the North Carolina justice system. Although the signs above each door depict litigation, arbitration, and mediation as the directions a dispute may take, the choices available to the parties have evolved since this graphic was introduced to provide for a wider array of alternatives for resolving disputes. This book is dedicated to former North Carolina Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE JamES G. EXUM, JR., without whose leadership many of the events herein would not have occurred, and CARMON J.
    [Show full text]
  • Advance Sheets Supreme Court
    373 N.C.—No. 5 Pages 292-596 STATE BAR OFFICERS; STATE BAR STANDING COMMITTEES AND 373 N.C.—No. 5 BOARDS; MODEL BYLAWS FOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT BARS; DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY OF ATTORNEYS; JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES; PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS; FEE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION; RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ADVANCE SHEETS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA Pages 292-596 MAY 20, 2020 MAILING ADDRESS: The Judicial Department P. O. Box 2170, Raleigh, N. C. 27602-2170 COMMERCIAL PRINTING COMPANY PRINTERS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA Chief Justice CHERI BEASLEY Associate Justices PAUL MARTIN NEWBY MICHAEL R. MORGAN ROBIN E. HUDSON ANITA EARLS SAMUEL J. ERVIN, IV MARK DAVIS Former Chief Justices RHODA B. BILLINGS JAMES G. EXUM, JR. BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. HENRY E. FRYE I. BEVERLY LAKE, JR. SARAH PARKER MARK D. MARTIN Former Justices ROBERT R. BROWNING GEORGE L. WAINWRIGHT, JR. J. PHIL CARLTON EDWARD THOMAS BRADY WILLIS P. WHICHARD PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON JAMES A. WYNN, JR. ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR. FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR. ROBERT H. EDMUNDS, JR. G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR. BARBARA A. JACKSON ROBERT F. ORR Clerk AMY L. FUNDERBURK Librarian THOMAS P. DAVIS i ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Director MCKINLEY WOOTEN1 Assistant Director DAVID F. HOKE OFFICE OF APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTER HARRY JAMES HUTCHESON JENNIFER C. PETERSON ALYSSA M. CHEN 1Appointed 2 March 2020. ii SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASES REPORTED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Rouse v. Forsyth Cty.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Report of the Supreme Judicial
    AMENDED REPORT OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT’S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOSCH LITIGATION Table of contents Executive summary ……………………………………………………........ 1 Membership ………………………………………………………………... 2 Objectives ………………………………………………………………….. 3 Brief historical background ………………………………………………… 4 Current state of litigation in Massachusetts ………………………………... 7 Cases from other jurisdictions ……………………………………………... 10 Types of relief sought and burden of proof ………………………………... 11 Disposition of the cases by the Supreme Judicial Court …………………... 14 Possible alternative methods of disposition ………………………………... 15 Expectations going forward ………………………………………………... 24 Recommendations …………………………………………………….......... 26 Appendix “A” ……………………………………………………………… A-1 Appendix “B” ………………………………………………………………. B-1 Appendix “C” ………………………………………………………………. C-1 1 AMENDED REPORT OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT’S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOSCH LITIGATION Executive summary The Supreme Judicial Court has had a longstanding practice of deciding the limited class of uncontested cases that are referred to in this report as Bosch cases. The resolution of the cases is not intended to, and does not in fact, settle any dispute between the parties per se, because all of the parties who are before the court agree as to the desired result. Rather, the resolution of these cases is meant to assist the parties in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service by deciding a matter of State law that will be binding on Federal authorities. The court has held that it is appropriate to decide this category of cases even though they lack some of the usual characteristics of truly adversarial litigation. Separate and apart from the question whether the Massachusetts courts should decide these one-sided cases is the question of which court should decide them. That question is at the heart of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the University Registrar
    Bulletin of Duke University School of Law 2017-2018 Bulletin of Duke University School of Law 2017-2018 1 Editor Kristin Triebel Coordinating Editor Bahar Rostami Publications Coordinator Keely Fagan Photographs Courtesy of Duke School of Law Department of Communications and Duke Photography The information in this bulletin applies to the academic year 2017-2018 and is accurate and current, to the greatest extent possible, as of August 2017. The university reserves the right to change programs of study, academic requirements, teaching staff, the calendar, and other matters described herein without prior notice, in accordance with established procedures. Duke University does not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind. Duke University has designated Dr. Benjamin Reese, vice-president for institutional equity, as the individual responsible for the coordination and administration of its nondiscrimination and harassment policies generally. The Office for Institutional Equity is located in Smith Warehouse, 114 S. Buchanan Blvd., Bay 8, Durham, NC 27708. Dr. Reese’s office telephone number is (919) 684-8222 and his email address is [email protected]. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are forms of sex discrimination and prohibited by the university. Duke University has designated Howard Kallem as its director of Title IX compliance and Age Discrimination Act coordinator. He is also with the Office for Institutional Equity and can be contacted at (919) 684-1437 or [email protected]. Questions or comments about discrimination, harassment, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking can be directed to the Office for Institutional Equity, (919) 684-8222. Additional information, including the complete text of the discrimination grievance procedure and the harassment policy and appropriate complaint procedures, may be found by contacting the Office for Institutional Equity or visiting its website at www.duke.edu/web/equity/.
    [Show full text]
  • State of North Carolina General Court of Justice County of Forsyth Superior Court Division 96 Crs 9440
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF FORSYTH SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 96 CRS 9440 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION ) FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF ) HENRY JEROME WHITE ) Defendant Henry Jerome White’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment without parole were obtained in violation of state and federal law prohibiting race discrimination in jury selection. Through counsel, and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1411 to 1422, White respectfully requests that the Court vacate his conviction and grant a new trial. As set forth below, this Court should summarily grant White relief because the Court of Appeals previously held that White’s prosecutor struck black jurors with discriminatory intent. And since White’s direct appeal, the legal standard has changed such that White is now entitled to relief as a matter of law. Alternatively, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing on White’s claims of race discrimination in jury selection. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. In 1997, in Forsyth County Superior Court, White was tried capitally, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. White’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. White, 131 N.C. App. 734 (1998) (attached as Exhibit 1). 2. As discussed in the Court of Appeals opinion, in 1996, Carl Marshburn was robbed and killed at an auto paint and body shop in Winston-Salem where he worked. White’s cousin Harry Beaufort testified for the State at trial. Beaufort said when he and White went to the auto shop to pick up Beaufort’s paycheck, White went inside by himself, fired two gunshots, and came out with several hundred dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering the Fourth Circuit Judges: a History from 1941 to 1998
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 55 | Issue 2 Article 5 3-1-1998 Remembering the Fourth Circuit Judges: A History from 1941 to 1998 Recommended Citation Remembering the Fourth Circuit Judges: A History from 1941 to 1998, 55 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 471 (1998), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol55/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Remembering the Fourth Circuit Judges: A History from 1941 to 1998 The Editorsand Staffivriters ofthe Washington andLeeLaw Review areproud to presentthis retrospective look at some ofthejudges ofthe Fourth Circuit. Washington and Lee University has always enjoyed a close relationshipwith the Fourth Circuit. We were honored when Judge Widener,a distinguishedalumnus ofthe Law School, asked us to update Judge McClintic's 1941 addressto the Fourth CircuitJudicial Conference. Ourproject takes up where Judge McClintic left off. The history includes briefbiographical sketches ofthe circuitjudges who have eitherdied orretiredfromthe bench since 1941, aswell asasketch ofJudge ElliottNorthcott, who retiredin 1939. We dedicate this history to the memory of Judge Donald Stuart Russell, who passedaway as we were puttingthe final touches on this Article. In the Fallof1996, when Judge Russell was sittingon a Fourth Circuitpanelthatheard oral argwnents in the WashingtonandLeeMoot Court Room, members ofthe Law Review interviewed Judge Russell. Judge Russell shared many stories and anecdotes about his former colleagues on the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Lution of Scheduling Conflicts Between and Among the State and Federal Trial and Appellate Courts of North Carolina the Following Guidelines Are Hereby Established
    GUIDELINES FOR RESOLVING SCHEDULING CONFLICTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM STANDARD FOR THE RESO- LUTION OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS BETWEEN AND AMONG THE STATE AND FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS OF NORTH CAROLINA THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED: 1. It shall be the duty of counsel, other than solo practitioners, to have another member of the firm reasonably well acquainted with the case to the end that, where practicable, substitution of counsel may be made in order to avoid conflict. 2. In resolving scheduling conflicts the following priorities should ordinarily prevail: a. Appellate cases should prevail over trial cases; b. The case in which the trial date has been first set (by published calendar, order or notice) should take precedence; c. Criminal felony trials should prevail over civil trials; d. Trials should prevail over motion hearings. e. In resolving conflicts between the several divisions of the North Carolina General Court of Justice, the provisions of Rule 3, General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts, shall control. 3. In addition to the above priorities, consideration should be given to the comparative age of the cases, their complexity, the estimated trial time, the number of attorneys and parties involved, whether the trial involves a jury, and the difficulty or ease of rescheduling. 4. It shall be the duty of an attorney promptly upon learning of a scheduling conflict to give written notice to opposing counsel, the clerk of all courts and the presiding judges, if known, in all cases, stating therein the circumstances relevant to a resolution of the conflict under these guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina No
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-cv-00399 SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al., PLAINTIFFS, PLAINTIFFS’ POST-TRIAL V. BRIEFING ON REMEDY THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al, DEFENDANTS. NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Court’s request of the parties and minute entry dated April 15, 2016, submit the following post-trial briefing on remedy and a potential remedial schedule. I. Should this Court Strike Down Any of the Challenged Districts, Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Relief Before the 2016 Election Should this Court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor, Plaintiffs and millions of North Carolina voters will have already been subjected to two election cycles under the unconstitutional enacted state legislative redistricting plans. Based on their pre-trial brief, ECF No. 81, and briefing in which the same Defendants unsuccessfully sought a stay in remedy in Harris v. McCrory, No. 1:13-cv-949, Defendants will certainly seek to delay implementation of remedy until after the 2016 elections. This Court should not allow any delay, and should act quickly to protect the right to vote of people in this state. Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 115 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 22 Indeed, [O]nce a State’s…apportionment scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.
    [Show full text]