Home (page 5)

Tag Archives: Judge David J. Novak

Choice-of-law question gets interlocutory review (access required)

The decision that a choice-of-law provision in plaintiffs’ loan agreements with tribal officials would violate Virginia’s public policy against unregulated usurious lending was certified for immediate interlocutory appeal. It was a controlling question of law upon which there was no ...

Read More »

Early release denied to terminally ill two-time murderer (access required)

Although a twice-convicted murderer exhausted the Bureau of Prisons’ compassionate release process, and his terminal illness qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release, a weighing of the factors—including the seriousness of his offense, lack of evidence of ...

Read More »

Deputy sheriff gets no immunity for retaliatory traffic ticket (access required)

Where a woman had complained about a Spotsylvania County Deputy Sheriff, and the deputy sheriff later promised to buy another deputy lunch if he issued a ticket to the woman, the deputy sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity because ...

Read More »

Woman’s claim for ‘constructive demotion’ recognized (access required)

Although the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church argued the bias suit should be dismissed because it would require the court to engage in matters of religious and church governance, this argument failed because the claims stemming from the ...

Read More »

RICO/usury suit against tribal lenders stays in federal court (access required)

Where tribal officials argued that the plaintiffs’ RICO claims, based on allegations their consumer loans violated usury statutes, should be heard in arbitration or dismissed,  the arbitration provisions were deemed unenforceable and the plaintiffs’ claims were largely sufficient at this ...

Read More »

Arbitration ‘award’ with no grounding in law vacated (access required)

An “award” was vacated where the petitioner obtained an arbitration hearing by sending a loan servicer an incomprehensible agreement and used its non-response to initiate arbitration, and where the “award” did not appear to have any grounding in fact or ...

Read More »