News
Real Estate
[09/03]
Hundreds of Volunteers Spending Labor Day Vacation Building Homes for Low-Income Families as Part of Worldwide Housing Event
[09/03]
Learning on a Shoe-String: Top Tips for Cheap Student Living
[09/02]
Pending home sales rise 5.2 percent in July
Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[09/03]
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Anderson Senior Living Prop., LLC.
In an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) grant of debtors' motion to dismiss as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 363(m), plaintiffs' appeal of the bankruptcy court's authorization of the sale of debtors' interests in seven co-owned properties as well as the undivided interests of the tenants in common (TIC), is affirmed as the BAP properly determined that section 363(m) moots the appeal because, even though the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the TIC property interests pursuant to section 363(h), the debtors ultimately sold the properties pursuant to section 363(b) and that sale was never stayed.
[09/02]
US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the
litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.
[09/02]
Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd. v. US Trustee
In a creditor's objection to the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee, arguing that the trustee did not qualify as a “disinterested person” as required by 11
U.S.C. section 1104(d), the denial of the objection is affirmed where: 1) the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the trustee's role and interests as a receiver did not predispose him towards forfeiture or amount to a disqualifying material adverse interest; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s determination that creditor failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the trustee's appointment as trustee in the jointly administered estates.
[08/27]
Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.
Consumer Protection
Debt Collection
[08/25]
Fireside Bank Cases
In coordinated class actions challenging a lender's collection practices, trial court's entry of dismissals with prejudice against all class members against whom the lender had previously secured judgments in separate collection actions is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' contention that the trial court was empowered by the UCL to grant class-wide relief to judgment debtors without a factual showing of grounds to avoid the judgments against them is rejected, and, since no other basis for relief on their behalf was ever suggested, the court did not err by concluding that the UCL afforded no basis for the class-wide affirmative relief sought in this class action; and 2) the appeal is dismissed as moot insofar as it is taken from orders denying leave to intervene and refusing to certify a subclass consisting of judgment debtors.
[08/23]
Regal Fin. Co. v. Tex Star Motors, Inc.
In a secured creditor's suit for deficiency against a used-car dealer, the court of appeals' order setting aside the jury verdict in favor of the secured creditor in finding no evidence of commercial reasonableness is reversed and remanded where: 1) the jury charge did not alter the standard for commercial reasonableness under Article 9, as the court of appeals erred in reading the jury instruction on commercial reasonableness to require evidence of a reasonable dealer standard; and 2) evidence of commercial reasonableness here is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
[08/18]
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
In an action against credit reporting agencies alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) because the face of plaintiff's superior court complaint lacked any indication of the amount in controversy, it did not trigger the first thirty-day removal period; 2) because section 1785.25(a) was the only substantive CCRAA furnisher provision specifically saved by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff's section 1785.25(f) claim was preempted; and 3) unless plaintiff raised a genuine issue as to whether the disputed item was inaccurate, her CCRAA section 1785.16 claims failed as a matter of law.
[08/13]
Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against Trans Union pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act for failing to correct the problems with plaintiff's credit report or respond satisfactorily to her inquiries, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant remains responsible for the accuracy in its reports under the FCRA as Congress clearly intended to ensure that credit reporting agencies exercise care when deciding to associate information with a given consumer, and the record clearly supports the jury's determination that defendant did not exercise sufficient care here; 2) district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's claims under 15 U.S.C section 1681; 3) district court's entry of judgment for $100,000 in punitive damages is affirmed as it clearly had the authority to enter the conditional remittitur and plaintiff's attempt to avoid the Supreme Court's decision in Donovan is meritless; 4) district court's denial of defendant's motion to remit the compensatory damage award is affirmed; and 5) district court's remitted punitive damages award of $100,000 is affirmed.
False Advertising
[08/16]
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.
In an action by an adult video actor claiming that defendants copied and sold thirteen copyrighted adult DVDs featuring plaintiff's performances, the district court's partial judgment as a matter of law for defendants is reversed where: 1) plaintiff's right of publicity claim was preempted by the Copyright Act; but 2) plaintiffs had standing to assert the copyright claims in question.
[08/03]
Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.
In Advertising.com's appeal from a preliminary injunction barring it from using a designation or trade name that was confusingly similar to AOL's ADVERTISING.COM trademark, the injunction is vacated in part where Advertise.com was likely to rebut the presumption of validity and prevail on its claim that ADVERTISING.COM was generic.
[08/02]
Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC
In a false advertising action based on defendant's release of several advertising statements expressing serious safety concerns regarding the use of wood treated with plaintiff's copper-based wood preservative, an injunction in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendant's statements regarding serious safety concerns arguably could be construed as more than general statements of opinion; and 2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the tests performed did not support defendant's conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of the preservative. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion by enjoining defendant regarding plaintiff's environmental advertisements because the court neither identified nor analyzed any statements by defendant to that effect.
[07/01]
Santa's Best Craft, LLC. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.