In June, four individuals and an advocacy organization for previously incarcerated individuals brought suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against several state and local officials alleging that Virginia was denying voting rights to some felons in violation of an 1870 statute, which set conditions for readmission of Virginia’s representatives to Congress after the Civil War. King, et al. v. Youngkin, et al., Case No. 3:23CV408 (EDVA June 26, 2023).
In an August 11 decision, Judge Henry Hudson of the EDVA conditionally certified a class of food service workers employed by a federal contractor at Fort Pickett who sued for unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Hernandez v. KBR Servs., LLC, Civil Action No. 3:22CV530-HEH, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140795 (E.D.Va. Aug. 11, 2023). The ruling highlights a split among EDVA judges as to the correct procedure for handling collective actions under the FLSA that mirrors a three-way split among the federal courts.
On June 12, Judge Hudson granted an emergency motion to stay arbitration proceedings, pending the court’s resolution of the issue of arbitrability in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. See Sauer Brands, Inc. v. Polytrade Int’l, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-181-HEH, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135786 (E.D. Va. June 12, 2023). As getting a case in or out of arbitration may be critical in pursuing a merits-based strategy or mitigating against excessive costs, this case provides several key considerations in structuring arbitration agreements and how to procedurally maneuver when one party proceeds to arbitration unilaterally over the other party’s objection.
A recent EDVA decision reinforced the point that removal to federal court must be based on the existence of either federal question or diversity jurisdiction, but not supplemental jurisdiction.
Following up on our post on obtaining temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in the EDVA, a recent decision by an EDVA judge clarifies that a motion to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed after the close of business on the date the TRO expires is untimely because “the TRO had already expired at the time that the Plaintiff moved the Court” for an extension. XYZ Corporation v. The Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, Case No. 1:23C-cv-00673-PTG-JFA (E.D.Va. July 25, 2023).