<?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 Liam O&#8217;Grady</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-liam-ogrady/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 21:11:04 +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>Claims Advance Against Loan Servicers&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/claims-advance-against-loan-servicers/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/claims-advance-against-loan-servicers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this lawsuit against two loan servicers filed by a borrower who participated in a Trial Period Plan for a HAMP loan modification, but was denied a permanent modification, an Alexandria U.S. District Court says several of plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, tortious interference and violation of RESPA and the Fair Debt Collections Practices [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/claims-advance-against-loan-servicers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rejects Claim for Pipe Patent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alexandria U.S. District Court upholds the USPTO’s rejection of plaintiff’s claims seeking to patent the a spirally formed pipe. On May 17, 1999, plaintiff filed a ‘922 application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 of plaintiff’s application, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed the Examiner’s rejections. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Arbitration of FCA Retaliation Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/no-arbitration-of-fca-retaliation-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/no-arbitration-of-fca-retaliation-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:05:27 +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 Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court says an arbitration clause in Independent Contractor Agreements signed by two firearms instructors does not require arbitration of the instructors’ claims that the government contractor violated the False Claims Act by terminating them for reporting falsified firearm certification results; the agreements were so substantively unconscionable as to be unenforceable. Plaintiffs [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/no-arbitration-of-fca-retaliation-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency’s Document Hunt Took Too Long&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/agencys-document-hunt-took-too-long/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/agencys-document-hunt-took-too-long/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Trade Commission has not demonstrated the reasonableness of its response in this FOIA suit filed by a law firm seeking information about the FTC’s interactions with representatives of the alcoholic beverage industry, on behalf of a firm client that oversees the agency’s regulation of alcohol; the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies summary judgment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/agencys-document-hunt-took-too-long/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fees Awarded After Spoliation Dismissal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/fees-awarded-after-spoliation-dismissal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/fees-awarded-after-spoliation-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After dismissing plaintiff’s suing alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, due to defendant’s destruction of his computer records and his computer, an Alexandria U.S. District Court orders plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees and costs of $202,399.66 for his egregious spoliation of evidence. The lead attorney for defendant [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/fees-awarded-after-spoliation-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy Trustee’s Lower Fee Approved&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/bankruptcy-trustees-lower-fee-approved/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/bankruptcy-trustees-lower-fee-approved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee loses his appeal arguing that the bankruptcy court failed to treat his request for fees as a commission and erred by reducing the trustee’s fee; the Alexandria U.S. District Court says the bankruptcy court found a factual basis in management of the bankruptcy estate for awarding a lower fee than [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/bankruptcy-trustees-lower-fee-approved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No FCA Claim from Time-Billing Complaint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-fca-claim-from-time-billing-complaint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-fca-claim-from-time-billing-complaint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:53:40 +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 Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former program manager who had complaints about how various projects were billed, including a complaint that his supervisor was directing him to bill to the government time plaintiff manager spent administering timesheets, does not allege any protected activity that could support his retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, and the Alexandria U.S. District [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-fca-claim-from-time-billing-complaint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Other Acts’ Admissible in Capital Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/other-acts-admissible-in-capital-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/other-acts-admissible-in-capital-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this capital murder prosecution, the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies defendant’s motion to exclude evidence showing he was familiar with chokehold techniques, had stalked and attacked three women in Northern Virginia several months before the crime alleged here and he viewed videos and websites depicting sexual violence and searched the Internet for information about [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/other-acts-admissible-in-capital-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA Can’t Regulate Stormwater Load&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to regulate the level a pollutant in Accotink Creek, a 25-mile long tributary of the Potomac River in Fairfax County, by establishing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the flow of stormwater, a nonpollutant, into the creek, and the Alexandria U.S. District Court grants the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Challenge Must Come When Reg is Final&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/11/challenge-must-come-when-reg-is-final/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/11/challenge-must-come-when-reg-is-final/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court reconsiders its earlier decision denying dismissal of this suit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in light of the 4th Circuit’s Oct. 18, 2012, decision in Hire Order Ltd. v. Marianos [VLW 012-2-185], and grants the motion to dismiss plaintiff pharmaceutical company’s action. Plaintiffs challenge the PTO’s decision to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/11/challenge-must-come-when-reg-is-final/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
