WDVa Denies Transfer of Same-Sex Marriage Case

Judge Urbanski denied a motion to transfer venue in an action challenging Virginia's ban on same sex marriage.  The State had asked the Court to transfer the lawsuit, which is pending in the Harrisonburg Division, to Norfolk so it could be consolidated with a similar lawsuit pending there.  The Court, however, declined the motion to transfer venue, finding "meaningful differences" among the plaintiffs.  One interesting difference is that the Harrisonburg case is a class action lawsuit.  It was brought by a couple in Staunton who were denied a marriage license after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act this summer.  For more information about the case, click here.

Notable Virginia Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court of Virginia issued several notable opinions this week.

The Supreme Court reversed a Portsmouth judge's ruling striking down new tolls on the Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth.  Look at a map of the area and you'll see why tunnels are so important and controversial in Hampton Roads (the geographic area).  The Elizabeth River may look small compared to Hampton Roads (the water), but its hard to get around.

The Supreme Court upheld Charlottesville's Judge Hogshire's ruling banning cameras at the sentencing hearing of George Huguely, the UVa lacrosse player convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court overturned the jury verdict in the wrongful death lawsuit against the Commonwealth regarding the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech.  The Court held that there was no duty for state officials to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a ruling from Fairfax County Circuit Court dismissing a claim against real estate developers regarding telecommunications agreements entered into by the homeowners association.  Perhaps not as newsworthy as the other cases, but this ruling was important to me since I represented the appellees.

Magistrate Judge Crigler's Last Day On The Job

As previously noted on this blog, today marks the last day on the job for Magistrate Judge Waugh Crigler.  Charlottesville's Daily Progress published a nice article today about his retirement and the simultaneous retirement of his judicial assistant Judy Pace.  Local attorneys will miss them both very much.  The article also explained that, while Judge Crigler's offices were based in Charlottesville, his (yet to be determined) replacement will be based in Harrisonburg.  This will mark the first time since 1978 that Charlottesville has not had a resident trial level judge.  Fourth Circuit judges do not count as trial judges (except, I guess, for the rare occasion when they act as trial judges, such as election redistricting cases).  Of course, district judges from Roanoke and Lynchburg frequently travel to Charlottesville, and less frequently Harrisonburg.  When I clerked for Judge Wilson in Roanoke, we would often travel to Harrisonburg for hearings and trials.  I particularly remember one interesting criminal case in Harrisonburg that resulted in the acquittal of all defendants.  Whoever the new magistrate judge is, he or she will frequently have to travel to the other divisions.  Such is the nature of  being a trial level judge in the Western District of Virginia.

Summary Judgment For Assignee of Note and Guaranty

On July 26, 2013, Judge Turk entered summary judgment in the amount of $3.2 million in favor of the assignee of a note and personal guaranty.  See City National Bank v. Tress (WDVa 2013).  The defendants had agreed to guaranty the repayment of a note that secured commercial loans made to their LLC.  The LLC, however, soon stopped making payments on the note and went into receivership.  Plaintiff purchased the note and guaranty, but apparently there were problems with how the note was endorsed by the original noteholder.  Defendants, therefore, argued that the personal guaranty was not enforceable since the underlying note was arguably not enforceable by plaintiff.  The Court, however, ruled that under McDonald v. National Enterprises Inc., 547 S.E. 2d 204 (Va. 2001), the guaranty was an independent contract that could be enforced even if plaintiff would not have been able to enforce the note.  The enforceability of the guaranty depended on whether the note had been repaid.  Since the obligation on the note remained outstanding, the personal guaranty could be enforced even if plaintiff could not enforce the note itself.