Lawsuits Continue Against Central Virginia Regional Jail

Two federal lawsuits are proceeding against the Central Virginia Regional Jail for civil rights violations of inmates.  One case is brought by the mother of an inmate who died in CVRJ custody allegedly due to lack of medical care.  Thornhill v. Aylor, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00024, (WD.Va.) The other case is brought by a former inmate who claims she had medication withheld while at jail that resulted in a psychotic break and hospitalization at Western State Hospital in Staunton.  Jenkins v. Aylor, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00046 (W.D.Va.).  Both cases are pending before Judge Conrad in the Charlottesville Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.  The jail, located in the Town of Orange, serves the surrounding counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange.

In February 2016, Judge Conrad granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Thornhill case.  The Court dismissed the class action claim after finding there was insufficient "commonality" among the proposed class members.  The Court dismissed the individual claims against some of the defendants, but allowed others to go forward after finding that there was "sufficient factual allegations to support the claim that there was an official policy of deliberate indifference at CVRJ, specifically based on [the Superintendent's] inactions as its policy maker."  The Court determined that arguments as to sovereign immunity and qualified immunity would be heard at a later stage of the litigation.

Similarly, in the Jenkins case, the plaintiff brought the suit as a class action, but the defendants have filed motions to dismiss the class action claim and portions of other claims.  Those motions were heard by the Court on March 23, 2016.  An interesting issue that was argued at the hearing was whether the Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority is entitled to sovereign immunity.  Defense attorney argued that the five counties that comprise the authority each have sovereign immunity and would retain sovereign immunity if they operated their own separate jails; therefore, there should be immunity for the regional jail authority.  Plaintiff's counsel, however, argued that the authority itself does not meet the all of the standards for sovereign immunity, even thought its constituent members would have immunity.  The Court reserved judgment and will issue rulings on the motions at a later date.

You can read more about the lawsuits here and here.

Contaminated Oysters in Virginia Restaurant Enough for Jurisdiction Under "Stream of Commerce" Test

Contaminated oysters served at a Roanoke restaurant were placed in the "stream of commerce" by a Connecticut seafood supplier, and thus served as the basis for the Western District of Virginia to exercise personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seafood supplier. 

Since the oysters at issue traveled through several different distributors and suppliers before reaching Frankie Rowland's Steakhouse in Roanoke, the original supplier had argued that the was no personal jurisdiction over him given his lack of contacts with Virginia.  Judge Conrad, however, held that although the oysters were initially sold outside of Virginia, they were placed in the "stream of commerce" and purposefully availed to the Virginia market.  Therefore, it was foreseeable that the oysters would end up in Virginia and the supplier haled into court there.

The obvious lesson to be learned from this case is to eat locally sourced oysters, such as those served in Charlottesville's new Rocksalt restaurant.  There will be no jurisdictional issues if you get sick from eating the Olde Salts from Chincoteauge, Virginia or the Rappahannocks from the Middle Peninsula.

Approval of Settlement in Housing Authority Class Action

Judge Glen Conrad has preliminarily approved a class action settlement agreement between public housing residents and the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority.  The lawsuit alleged that residents overpaid tens of thousands of dollars for electrical utilities from June 2007 to May based on an outdated formula used to calculate energy allowances.  The amount of the settlement is  $160,000, but the Daily Progress reports that between this settlement sum and overhauled billing practices and rent credits negotiated as part of the agreement, the lawsuit will result in $500,000 for residents.