Gilbert v Residential Funding, LLC
Gilbert borrowed money to finance a land purchase. The note was assigned several times eventually belonging to Deutsche Bank. After Gilbert defaulted, Deutsche sought and obtained foreclosure. Gilbert filed suit in state court alleging truth in lending violations and state law claims. The case was transferred to federal court and the federal court dismissed. While the federal appeal was pending, the state foreclosure judgment was reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The federal panel reversed the order of dismissal. It held Gilbert sent a letter alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act less than three years after the transaction satisfying the statute and implanting regulations. In doing so, it rejected the 9th Circuit’s approach of requiring suit within three years. The panel also held Gilbert pled a claim for usury and unfair trade practices and remanded for further proceedings.
North Carolina Wildlife Federation v North Carolina Department of Transportation
The Department prepared an environmental impact statement for a proposed toll road near Charlotte. The statement’s “no build’ baseline assumed the toll road would be built. The Department denied the “no build” baseline made that assumption. After the toll road was approved, concerned groups filed suit alleging the statement process violated federal law. The district court disagreed and gave judgment to the Department. The panel reversed holding the assumption about the toll road and lying about it violated federal law and remanded for a proper evaluation. In doing so, it rejected the Department’s claim that confessing the error in litigation cured the violation at the administrative stage.
Police received a 911 call stating Laudermilt was threatening his girlfriend with a firearm. The officers were able to tackle Laudermilt and get him under control. They performed a protective sweep of the house. An autistic boy was in the house and, during questioning, pointed out the rifle used by Laudermilt. After indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, Laudermilt filed a motion to suppress which was granted on the basis that one of the officers know only the autistic boy was present thus the sweep had eliminated any danger of confrontation. The panel reversed holding the sweep was justified and continued for a reasonable time. Further, the officers were confused as to how many people may be in the house and were not required to accept Laudermilt’s statement that only the child was in the house. It also rejected the argument that the government was cobbling together innocent facts to justify the sweep. Alternatively, the panel held allowing the child to remain in the house and ask about the gun was reasonable under the circumstances.
