<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Ivan D. Davis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-ivan-d-davis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Spoliation Dismissal for ‘Wiping’ Computer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/spoliation-dismissal-for-wiping-computer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/spoliation-dismissal-for-wiping-computer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A computer expert suing for discrimination who ignored his lawyer’s notice to maintain files and documents and instead ran programs called Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner to delete records, then “wiped” his work desktop, “took a sledgehammer to it” and dumped it in a landfill, has his suit dismissed by the Alexandria U.S. District Court for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/spoliation-dismissal-for-wiping-computer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Late Mail Check No Excuse for Default&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/late-mail-check-no-excuse-for-default/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/late-mail-check-no-excuse-for-default/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendants have failed to proffer evidence of a meritorious defense or counterclaim to plaintiffs’ suit alleging breach of contract, resulting trust, fraudulent misrepresentation and common law conspiracy to commit fraud, and plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment, says an Alexandria U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge. Defendants have had at least four opportunities to proffer [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/late-mail-check-no-excuse-for-default/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excessive Fee Petition Cut 65 Percent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/16/excessive-fee-petition-cut-65-percent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/16/excessive-fee-petition-cut-65-percent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/16/excessive-fee-petition-cut-65-percent/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After imposing attorneys’ fees for noncompliance with discovery in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, the Alexandria U.S. District Court magistrate judge reduces plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees by 65 percent from $32, 257 to $11, 404; spending 83.10 hours on an uncomplicated motion to compel with only eight hours for an associate and paralegal, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/16/excessive-fee-petition-cut-65-percent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Amendment for Debt Collector’s Contract Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/30/no-amendment-for-debt-collector%e2%80%99s-contract-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/30/no-amendment-for-debt-collector%e2%80%99s-contract-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Anthony J. Trenga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/30/no-amendment-for-debt-collector%e2%80%99s-contract-claim/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging defendant defamed plaintiff by making false statements that plaintiff forged documents in connection with a contract for debt collection services plaintiff had with SMI Hyundai, an Alexandria U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denies defendant’s motion to amend his counterclaim to allege claims of breach of contract, breach [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/30/no-amendment-for-debt-collector%e2%80%99s-contract-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ECF Amended Harassment Complaint Was Timely&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/28/ecf-amended-harassment-complaint-was-timely/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/28/ecf-amended-harassment-complaint-was-timely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/28/ecf-amended-harassment-complaint-was-timely/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A female employee on a Wakefield hog breeding farm who is suing for sexual harassment by male coworkers has timely filed her amended claim even though the file stamp date differs from the date of entry into the court’s Electronic Case Filing system; the Norfolk U.S. District Court applies the court’s ECF Manual to calculate [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/28/ecf-amended-harassment-complaint-was-timely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sales Agent Sued for Contract Breach, Computer Crimes&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/13/sales-agent-sued-for-contract-breach-computer-crimes/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/13/sales-agent-sued-for-contract-breach-computer-crimes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/13/sales-agent-sued-for-contract-breach-computer-crimes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A company that sells credit card equipment and processing services can sue a sales agent for breach of contract, even though he did not sign the employment agreement, and for unfair competition, trademark infringement and violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act; but a magistrate judge for the Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses the third-party [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/13/sales-agent-sued-for-contract-breach-computer-crimes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Farm Equipment Seller Sues for Negligence&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/25/farm-equipment-seller-sues-for-negligence/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/25/farm-equipment-seller-sues-for-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=59752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where a farm equipment company and a tractor company had to pay a jury award of $165,000 to a man who was injured due to an allegedly defective hay bale spear, the farm equipment company may sue Southern Farm Supply for negligence and breach of implied warranty, if the Alexandria U.S. District Court accepts the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/25/farm-equipment-seller-sues-for-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal &#8211; Civil Forfeiture &#8211; Currency Reporting&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/13/criminal-civil-forfeiture-currency-reporting/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/13/criminal-civil-forfeiture-currency-reporting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=52901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court denies the government summary judgment in this civil forfeiture action seeking $79,650 seized from a Bank of America account belonging to a 58-year-old Ethiopian businessman who allegedly made structured deposits into the account with the intention to avoid the currency transaction reporting requirement of 31 U.S.C. § 5313. The government [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/13/criminal-civil-forfeiture-currency-reporting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal &#8211; Medicare Fraud &#8211; Search Warrant &#8211; Office Records&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2009/12/21/criminal-medicare-fraud-search-warrant-office-records/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2009/12/21/criminal-medicare-fraud-search-warrant-office-records/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ivan D. Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=49979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A physician charged with fraudulent billing practices cannot suppress medical office records on the ground that the authorizing search warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad, and a Norfolk U.S. District Court denies defendant’s motion to suppress and his additional motions. Defendant, a hematologist and oncologist, is alleged to have devised and executed a fraudulent billing scheme to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2009/12/21/criminal-medicare-fraud-search-warrant-office-records/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
