Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
Commercial Law
Consumer Protection
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
Bankruptcy Law
[11/17]
Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure
In a bankruptcy case in which debtor had embezzled and subsequently repaid funds from his employer, and employer had later been required to return those funds to the bankruptcy estate, dismissal of employer's complaint alleging that it had a nondischargeable claim against debtor is reversed where a creditor that is required to return to the trustee a payment from the debtor made within the ninety-day preference period still maintains a claim against the debtor for a nondischargeable claim.
[11/13]
In re: Lanning
For purposes of calculating the "projected disposable income" of an above-median Chapter 13 debtor under amendments to the bankruptcy code effected by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, the circuit court adopts the "forward-looking approach," wherein a Chapter 13 debtor's six-month, pre-petition "disposable income" (as defined by statute) is presumed to be the debtor's "projected disposable income" for purposes of establishing the monthly sum that the debtor must commit to repayment of unsecured creditors in order to advance a confirmable payment plan and overcome objections to it. Also, the amount of projected disposable income is rebuttable upon a showing of special circumstances at the time of plan confirmation.
[11/13]
Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.
[11/06]
In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.
More...
Commercial Law
[11/18]
Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.
[11/14]
Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).
[11/12]
Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.
[11/12]
Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.
More...
Consumer Protection
[11/14]
H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.
[11/13]
McKinney v. Cadleway Props., Inc.
In a suit alleging that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in its efforts to collect upon a debt, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) defendant was a "debt collector" subject to the FDCPA; but 2) the "validation of debt" notice defendant sent to plaintiff was clear on its face, and provided the statutorily-required information.
[11/10]
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.
[11/04]
In Re: Sterten
In a bankruptcy proceeding, upon debtor's challenge to the claim of a mortgage corporation, seeking rescission of the loan upon which the claim was based, judgment in favor of creditor is affirmed, where a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) defendant who does not specifically defend on the ground that any inaccuracies in its disclosure fell within the tolerance range provided by TILA does not waive the protection that provision provides.
More...
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[11/18]
Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.
[11/14]
In Re NEXT Fin. Group, Inc.
In a suit claiming that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged for refusing to conceal allegedly fraudulent securities transactions, petition for mandamus relief is granted where plaintiff was required to arbitrate a claim that his employer wrongfully discharged him for refusing to commit an illegal act.
[11/10]
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.
[11/06]
Moglia v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co.
In a bankruptcy-related action in which debtor's trustee sought partial release of letters of credit issued by debtor to defendants-insurers, and defendants in turn sought to enforce an arbitration provision in the policies, trustee's appeal of a district court order compelling arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the trustee could be required to sign the arbitrator's hold-harmless agreement; 2) an appeal from the order to sign the agreement was interlocutory in nature, and appellate review was not available; and 3) the court could not review the order under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction.
More...
|
