Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[07/22]
Bondi v. Capital & Fin. Asset Mgmt. S.A.
Denial of motion by debtor in foreign bankruptcy proceedings to enjoin actions brought against it in the United States is affirmed where the district court acted within its sound discretion in interpreting 11 U.S.C. section 304(c)'s instruction to assure an economical and expeditious administration of a foreign estate.
[05/30]
In re: Parmenter
In a bankruptcy case, denial of lessor-creditor's motion for administrative expenses arising from debtors' default on a lease that they assumed direct responsibility for paying as part of their Chapter 13 plan is affirmed where the claim was barred by res judicata because the bankruptcy plan did not obligate the estate to pay for debts personally assumed by the debtors.
[05/29]
Coury v. Moss
In an interlocutory appeal in a shareholder derivative action, partial summary judgment for plaintiff holding that he had not sold or transferred his stock to anyone in violation of defendant's right of first refusal is affirmed where the transaction between plaintiff and a third party was merely an exchange and not a sale as defined by law where the plaintiff received a release or discharge of the bankruptcy estate's interest or advance claim on the stock in exchange of an assignment of future profits.
[05/29]
In re: Patch
In bankruptcy proceedings, a decision affirming sua sponte entry of summary judgment in favor of father, the trustee for the heirs and next of kin of his child who was murdered by debtor-mother's boyfriend, is reversed where the bankruptcy court and BAP both erred by concluding that mother's debt, resulting from her role in the child's death, was nondischargeable as a matter of law.
[05/29]
In re: Bd. of Dir. of Telecom Argentina, S.A.
In a case involving an investor's challenges to a major Argentine telecommunications company's financial restructuring plan, the judgment is affirmed where the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in: 1) confirming a petition recognizing the restructuring plan and extending comity to Argentine legal proceedings based on its finding that those proceedings did not violate U.S. public policy considerations manifested in the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the best interests of the creditor test, or the good-faith requirement provided for in the Bankruptcy Code; nor 2) denying additional discovery or expert testimony in light of the reasonably sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence from both parties.
[05/28]
In re: United Producers, Inc.
Dismissal of creditors' appeal of a bankruptcy court's plan confirmation orders is affirmed on grounds of equitable mootness where: 1) creditors' failure to obtain a stay of the implementation of a confirmation plan weighed towards denying an appeal on equitable mootness grounds; 2) the plan had progressed to such a point where it had been substantially consummated; and 3) granting creditors' relief would negatively affect the success of the plan and harm innocent third parties.
[05/23]
St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Century Asphalt Materials, LLC
In an action to collect bond claims for unpaid materials, the district court's reversal of a holding that the time to file the claims with appellee-surety was reset when appellant returned payments made by debtor after filing is reversed where: 1) section 2253 of Texas' McGregor Act does not contain a notice exemption for bond claims on payments that were avoided in bankruptcy since it is grounded in the date of delivery, not in the date of payment or failure to pay; and 2) equitable tolling does not apply to the bond claim since section 2253 is a condition precedent to the existence of a cause of action on the surety bond.
[05/22]
In re: Zahn
A debtor who objects to her own Chapter 13 plan may be an "aggrieved party" and have standing to appeal confirmation of such plan.
[05/19]
In re: Ballard
In bankruptcy proceedings involving circumstances in which debtors surrendered vehicles purchased less than 910 days before bankruptcy in full satisfaction of creditor's claim, confirmation of debtors' plans is reversed and remanded where: 1) by choosing to surrender a 910 vehicle under section 1325(a)(5)(C), a debtor satisfies the requirements for plan confirmation under section 1325(a)(5) with respect to that secured claim; 2) whether a creditor may bring an unsecured claim to recover a deficiency after sale of the vehicle depends on the underlying contract and state law; and 3) in the case at hand, Oklahoma law allowed creditor to pursue such claims.
[05/19]
In Re: Krebs
In an appeal addressing whether a debtor's right to receive payment from an individual retirement account (IRA) may be exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. section 522(d)(10)(E), even though the debtor has not yet reached retirement age, the circuit court rules that an intervening Supreme Court decision implicitly overrules prior precedent, and thus the debtor's right to receive payments from her IRA may be exempt from the bankruptcy estate under section 522(d)(10)(E).
[05/16]
In re: Bayhi
A bankruptcy proceeding that vacated a state court judgment, enjoined further state court litigation, and held appellant in contempt is reversed, the order of the bankruptcy court and district court vacated and the case remanded where: 1) appellant did not have to assert his prospective contribution rights in appellee's bankruptcy proceedings since they are both responsible for a per se non-dischargeable debt; 2) the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority when it vacated the relevant state court judgments and enjoined the commencement of any future collection attempts by the appellant; and 3) the court abused its discretion when it held the appellant in contempt.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[07/22]
Williams v. Town of Greenburgh
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant-town and two municipal officers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's desire to use town's community center was not protected by his right to freedom of movement; 2) plaintiff's speech was not silenced or chilled by defendant's allegedly punitive conduct; and 3) probable cause supported the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff's criminal trespass.
[07/22]
US v. De La Mata
In a case where the government obtained defendants' promises to convey certain interests in property to the United States, in lieu of a forfeiture trial and sentence, an order granting the government's motion for a "final order of forfeiture" is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) individual defendants and corporate defendants were properly before the court of appeals; 2) the circuit court rejects individual defendants' argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government's motion sought relief in a criminal case via amended sentences; but 3) corporate defendants were not parties to individual defendants' agreements and thus retained certain property interests.
[05/28]
Steiner v. Thexton
In an action seeking specific performance of a real estate sales agreement, judgment and an award of attorney's fees for defendant-property owner are affirmed where: 1) the underlying agreement was not a contract for purchase and sale but an unsuccessful attempt to create an option which was never exercised by plaintiff-buyers; 2) the disguised option was essentially a revocable offer which is unenforceable due to a lack of consideration; 3) the equities did not warrant an application of promissory estoppel doctrine to this case; and 4) plaintiff failed to show grounds for reversal of the attorney's fee award.
[05/27]
Azure Limited v. I-Flow Corp.
In a breach of fiduciary duty action alleging defendant wrongfully transferred corporate shares to the State of California as escheated property without notice, judgment on the pleadings for defendant based on immunity under Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) is reversed where: 1) the UPL immunizes corporations from civil liability only when they transfer escheated shares to the state in compliance with provisions of the UPL; and 2) the UPL does not immunize corporations like defendant who allegedly transfer non-escheated shares to the state without giving the required notice.
[05/23]
Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Ass'n v. California Coastal Comm'n
In a case wherein the California Coastal Commission granted plaintiff a coastal development permit conditioned upon payment of a fee to be used toward the purchase of beach property elsewhere, to mitigate for the loss of beach area, denial of plaintiff's writ of administrative mandate is affirmed over claims that: 1) the fee was an unconstitutional taking because there was no nexus or rough proportionality between it and the projected impact of the seawall; 2) the commission lacked statutory authority to impose the fee; 3) the fee was not supported by substantial evidence; and 4) the commission arbitrarily increased the fee amount.
[05/22]
W. Shoshone Nat'l Council v. US
In a suit seeking to invalidate a 1977 Indian Claims Commission (ICC) judgment awarding compensation for the taking of plaintiffs' lands, as well as additional compensation and other relief under the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where: 1) a claim that the ICC allegedly denied plaintiff due process in reaching its judgment was untimely, and thus the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) a claim for $14 billion as prejudgment interest from the stipulated date of the taking (1872) until the time of the award, failed as the Treaty of Ruby Valley did not recognize that plaintiffs have title in the disputed territory.
[05/21]
Jackson v. US
Partial denial of defendant's motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. Pro 41(g) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) evidence indicated that another party had a claim of ownership interest adverse to defendant's stereo/video equipment and clothing found in his girlfriend's vehicle at the time of arrest; but 2) defendant was entitled to return of custom wheels installed on his girlfriend's vehicle as, evidence did not suggest that the property was abandoned, intended as a gift, or integrated under Missouri's doctrine of accession.
[05/21]
1-10 Indus. Assoc., LLC v. US
In a contract dispute, an order imposing sanctions on the government's attorney for violations of counsel's duty of candor to the court under Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims 11(b) is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) failure to inform the sanctioned attorney that his conduct in a prior case provided evidence of a pattern of misconduct constituted reversible error; and 2) a sanctioned attorney's mistake as to choice of theory or miscalculation of facts necessary to sustain the theory does not necessarily equate with breach of the duty of candor when the attorney does not make any affirmative representation based on the facts.
[05/20]
Southwestern Bell Tel., LP v. City of Houston
In a dispute over an ordinance that allegedly violates the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA), which proscribes state and local governments from prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide telecommunications services, dismissal of plaintiff's claim is affirmed where: 1) section 253 of the FTA does not create an enforceable private right pursuant to section 1983 since it does not unambiguously establish one, and it contains a comprehensive enforcement scheme for violations of FTA section 253; and 2) the ordinance is neutral and non-discriminatory, and thus falls within the safe harbor provision of section 253(c) and is not preempted by the FTA.
[05/20]
Sunrise Valley, LLC v. Norton
In a quiet title action brought under the federal Quiet Title Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) sand, gravel, and rock are minerals in which the government has an express reservation on land patents issued under the the Stock-Raising Homestead Act; and 2) the court is bound to apply the precedent in Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. 462 U.S. 36 (1983) since the case is governed by the Stock-Raising Homestead Act.
[05/20]
Devonwood Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Farmers Ins. Condominium Owners Ass'n
In a fire insurance policy coverage dispute concerning the effects of an appraisal award issued by an appraisal panel pursuant to the policy's provisions, judgment in favor of insured is vacated and remanded where the lower court's judgment did not conform to the appraisal award upon which it was based, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.4.
More...
|
