Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[05/15]
In re: Resource Tech. Corp.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which plaintiffs sought to be assigned a contract bankruptcy debtor had with a third party, bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to compel the trustee to assume the contract and then assign it is affirmed where: 1) the court did not improperly consider whether the contract between the debtor and the third party had expired in order to determine if the trustee could assume the contract without being subject to sanctions under Rule 9011; 2) orders extending the time for the trustee to assume or reject the contract were not a basis to contend that the contract had not expired; 3) third party was not estopped from asserting that the contract had expired; and 4) there was no need for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the contract had expired.
[05/14]
In re: M & S Grading, Inc.,
In an appeal following a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to require a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failing to pay contributions ordered while the debtor's case was in Chapter 11, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the bankruptcy court's order denying a motion to show cause was not a final appealable order; and 2) the order did not qualify as a collateral order, for purposes of the collateral order doctrine.
[05/13]
Tri-State Fin., LLC v. Lovald
In consolidated bankruptcy proceedings wherein the bankruptcy court denied a motion seeking recusal of the bankruptcy judge, approved a settlement negotiation, denied a motion for hearing on the settlement, and approved an award of attorneys' fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the recusal motion was made untimely; 2) upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement or denying the motion for settlement hearing; and 3) because the fee award was only challenged on the basis of a conflict and not contested as to whether the amount was reasonable, the court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorneys' fees.
[05/08]
Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.
[05/08]
In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.
[05/07]
In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.
[05/06]
In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.
[05/06]
In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.
[05/01]
In the Matter of: Babcock & Wilcox Co.
In an appeal arising in bankruptcy proceedings, judgment awarding attorney's fees to appellant-law firm is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney's fees at half the hourly rate for time spent traveling but not working, as opposed to the full hourly rate.
[04/29]
In re: Penn Traffic Co.
A non-debtor party to a contract which is executory at the time a bankruptcy case is commenced cannot, by post-petition tender or performance of its own outstanding obligations under the contract, deprive the debtor party of the ability to exercise its statutory right to reject the contract as disadvantageous to the estate.
[03/11]
In Re: Strack
In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, a decision finding a particular debt dischargeable is reversed where: 1) the debt arose by reason of debtor's "defalcation," or nonfraudulent default, while he was acting in a fiduciary capacity; and 2) consequently, 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4) renders the debt non-dischargeable.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[05/14]
Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.
[05/14]
Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.
[05/14]
Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.
[05/13]
Garcia v. Brockway
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments)
[05/13]
N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.
[05/13]
Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp.
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).
[05/12]
S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne
In appeals involving appellants' post-judgment motions to intervene in a case affecting their interests in oil and gas leases, the circuit court dismisses one appeal where the district court had yet to rule on their motion to intervene at the time movants filed their appeal. Denial of the other motion to intervene is affirmed on grounds that movants chose to intervene only after the government agency from which they obtained the leases decided not to pursue an appeal, and must await a final decision by the administrative agency in order to have an appealable final decision.
[05/12]
Taylor v. Westly
In long-running litigation involving the constitutionality of California's statutory procedure addressing escheat, grant of a motion to dissolve an injunction preventing the operation of California's escheat process is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) on its face, the state's new procedure complies with the due process standard previously established by the Supreme Court; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in dissolving the injunction; but 3) a denial of interim attorney's fees to plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
[05/12]
In re Marriage of Holtemann
In a dispute about the legal effect of a spousal property transmutation agreement executed during marriage, judgment finding the underlying agreement effectuated a transmutation of husband's separate property into community property is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language in the parties' agreement evinced that the husband intended to, and did transmute his separate property; 2) nothing in the record suggested that the husband was misinformed or misled in light of the requisite express, unequivocal declarations of transmutations; and 3) his arguments for disparate treatment of his express declarations of transmutation based on his lack of separate counsel were unavailing, as he was fully advised of the consequences of failing to secure separate counsel, yet chose to proceed.
[05/12]
Ocwen Orlando Holdings Corp. v. Harvard Prop. Trust, LLC
In a breach of contract action involving a forum selection clause which prevented the transfer of any action filed in any court to any other court, a judgment honoring the effects of underlying clause is affirmed where: 1) the plain meaning of the clause governed, as its unequivocal language was insusceptible of more than one interpretation; and 2) based upon the plain meaning of the word "transfer", the forum selection clause waived defendant's right to remove along with its right to transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
[05/09]
California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (Walker)
Vehicle Code section 14602.6(a)(1) provides only discretionary authority to impound and therefore the California Highway Patrol cannot be held liable under Government Code section 815.6 for failing to perform a mandatory duty.
More...
|
