[02/02]
Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc. Increases Quarterly Dividend
[02/02]
MFA Financial, Inc. to Present at Credit Suisse Financial Services Forum
[02/02]
PulteGroup Reports Financial Results for 2011 Fourth Quarter
[02/02]
Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.
[01/30]
Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders denying a creditor's motion to compel arbitration and disallowing its claim is affirmed, where: 1) the resolution of the creditor's claim was a core matter in the bankruptcy; 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor's motion to compel arbitration; 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give the creditor further opportunity for discovery; 4) the creditor's claim was properly disallowed because because the debtor's covenants in a settlement agreement were purported prepetition waivers of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, which need not be permitted.
[01/27]
Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving the question whether the debtor was subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the district court's holding that the single asset real estate provisions applied is affirmed, where: 1) the debtor, which existed solely to operate a 92-unit apartment complex, could be characterized as a single asset real estate debtor under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) the plain language of the Code gives no basis for a "whole business enterprise" exception to single asset real estate debtor status that would allow the court to consider parent corporation and sister subsidiaries; and 3) the district court did not err in its approach to granting relief from the automatic stay by leaving questions about whether the debtor timely took timely corrective action to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.
[01/25]
Flores v. Kmart Corp.
In a wrongful death action brought against a corporation that had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy pursuant to which a bankruptcy court had entered an order confirming a reorganization plan and discharging all known and unknown claims against the corporation, the trial court's demurrer dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where on the limited record of bankruptcy proceedings provided by the corporation, and consistent with Fourteenth Amendment due process principles, the corporation failed to demonstrate, at the demurrer stage, that the approval of the reorganization plan barred all of the plaintiffs' claims.
[01/18]
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In a damages action brought in federal district court, alleging that the respondent, seeking to collect a debt, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by repeatedly using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice to call the plaintiff’s cellular phone without his consent, the dismissal of the complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction is reversed, as the claim arose under federal law, and the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the US district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1331.
[09/27]
L.K. v. Golightly
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's tort action arising out of a dispute over child support arrears, judgment is affirmed where the exclusive remedy available for review of a decision by the director of Child Support Services Department under Family Code section 17803 is a Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 petition for writ review.
[09/26]
Grayson Services, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's action for failure to comply with the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL), judgment is reversed where defendant-bank, chartered as a national association, is a "person" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 680.280 and, accordingly, is subject to the duties and liabilities imposed on "third persons" by sections 701.010, 701.020, and 701.030 of the EJL.
[09/23]
Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court and an award of statutory damages under the under both the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code section 1788 et seq., judgment is affirmed where the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs because defendant's letters to plaintiffs constituted false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of debts, and where the Rosenthal Act permits class actions while permitting class-plaintiffs to recover statutory damages under both the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act does not violate the FDCPA.
[01/12]
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
In an appeal from the district court’s Rule 23(b)(3) certification of a nationwide class complaint for false advertising and other related state claims, judgment is reversed where the district court erred because it erroneously: 1) concluded that California law could be applied to the entire nationwide class; and 2) concluded that all consumers who purchased or lease an Acura RL can be presumed to have relied on defendant’s advertisements.
[10/28]
Duncan v. The McCaffrey Group, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for unfair competition and false advertising, judgment is reversed because: 1) the complaint pleaded sufficient facts to proceed; and 2) a triable issue of fact exists as to breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud causes of action.
[09/28]
Degelmann v. Advanced Medical Optics Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' action against defendant for unfair competition and false advertising, judgment is affirmed where although the court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing, plaintiffs' claims as alleged are preempted under 21 U.S.C. section 360k(a) of the Medical Devices Amendments.
[09/23]
Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court and an award of statutory damages under the under both the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code section 1788 et seq., judgment is affirmed where the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs because defendant's letters to plaintiffs constituted false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of debts, and where the Rosenthal Act permits class actions while permitting class-plaintiffs to recover statutory damages under both the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act does not violate the FDCPA.
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © 2012 by Law Offices of Alberto H. Hernandez, P.A. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.