<?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 Robert G. Doumar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-robert-g-doumar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:10:30 +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>Contract Dispute Stays with Goods&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/contract-dispute-stays-with-goods/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/contract-dispute-stays-with-goods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this contract dispute between a Barbadian dolomite supplier suing a glass manufacturer for refusing to accept or pay for part of a shipment of dolomite from a Spanish quarry, the Norfolk U.S. District Court says jurisdiction would be proper in either of two other federal courts, but defendant manufacturer has failed to meet its [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/contract-dispute-stays-with-goods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Female lifeguard prevails in federal retaliation suit &#8211; $17,500 Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/female-lifeguard-prevails-in-federal-retaliation-suit-17500-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/female-lifeguard-prevails-in-federal-retaliation-suit-17500-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff, a 25-year-old female, had been a supervisor with the Virginia Beach Lifesaving Service since 2005. She sued for gender discrimination due to lack of promotion, and then for retaliation after being fired within weeks of the VBLS learning she filed such a charge with the EEOC. The court ruled against plaintiff on Rule 50 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/female-lifeguard-prevails-in-federal-retaliation-suit-17500-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jury finds retaliation in lifeguard bias case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/jury-finds-retaliation-in-lifeguard-bias-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/jury-finds-retaliation-in-lifeguard-bias-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employment lawyers are hailing a trial victory for a former Virginia Beach lifeguard who claimed gender discrimination by squad leaders, even though her discrimination claim faltered and a jury awarded only $17,500 in damages for retaliation. A lawyer for the defendant lifeguard service says the trial outcome is no cause for celebration, considering the original [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/jury-finds-retaliation-in-lifeguard-bias-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lower Bond Ordered for Vessel Departure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/lower-bond-ordered-for-vessel-departure/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/lower-bond-ordered-for-vessel-departure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 16:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court says the Coast Guard exceeded its authority when it decided an owner must post a $2.5 million bond in order to obtain departure clearance while the Coast Guard investigates potential criminal violations of a marine pollution prevention protocol. This matter involves an emergency petition and motion for release of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/lower-bond-ordered-for-vessel-departure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foreclosure Buy by Freddie Mac Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/foreclosure-buy-by-freddie-mac-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/foreclosure-buy-by-freddie-mac-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:20:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant Freddie Mac wins dismissal of this suit filed by plaintiffs who have lost their Virginia Beach home to foreclosure; the Norfolk U.S. District Court says the complaint fails to adequately plead that plaintiffs have superior title to Freddie Mac, purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale. The property at issue here was foreclosed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/foreclosure-buy-by-freddie-mac-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Long-Term Disability for Former Exec&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/no-long-term-disability-for-former-exec/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/no-long-term-disability-for-former-exec/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former executive of a trader magazine publishing company loses his ERISA suit seeking long-term disability benefits for his conditions of anxiety, depression and ADD, as a review by four independent physicians does not support his claim; the Norfolk U.S. District Court also denies plaintiff’s claim for over $100,000 in civil penalties for the company’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/no-long-term-disability-for-former-exec/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No ‘Mutual Mistake’ to Protect Guarantors&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/no-mutual-mistake-to-protect-guarantors/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/no-mutual-mistake-to-protect-guarantors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creditor's Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73770</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiff bank’s suit to collect from five guarantors on a note for a Chesapeake hotel’s $5.1 million loan secured by the hotel, the Norfolk U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to the bank as the guarantors have not shown any genuine issues of material fact as to their defenses of the statute of frauds [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/no-mutual-mistake-to-protect-guarantors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amending Complaint Doesn’t Prompt Remand&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/amending-complaint-doesnt-prompt-remand/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/amending-complaint-doesnt-prompt-remand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff amended his claim of wrongful discharge from his shop steward position after removal to federal court, removing references to collective bargaining agreements in a “transparent attempt” to avoid federal jurisdiction, the Norfolk U.S. District Court says the gravamen of the complaint remains the same and the court denies plaintiff’s motion to remand to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/amending-complaint-doesnt-prompt-remand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Notice of Supermarket’s Folded Mat&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/no-notice-of-supermarkets-folded-mat/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/no-notice-of-supermarkets-folded-mat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A woman shopping for flowers at her local Food Lion who “slipped over” a black rubber mat in front of the store’s flower case cannot show the store had notice that the mat was in a “folded over” position on the floor, and the store wins summary judgment in this trip-and-fall case in the Newport [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/no-notice-of-supermarkets-folded-mat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Actual Notice Triggers Removal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/actual-notice-triggers-removal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/actual-notice-triggers-removal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Newport News U.S. District Court remands to state court a slip-and-fall plaintiff’s negligence action against grocery store: grocery store had actual notice of both the defendant’s identity and the damages sought months before removing; removal was untimely and the case is remanded. In November 2011, pro se plaintiff sued “Food Lion Stores, Inc.” in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/actual-notice-triggers-removal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
