Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
Construction
Property Law & Real Estate
Bankruptcy Law
[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.
[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...
Construction
[05/08]
Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.
[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.
[05/05]
Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.
[05/02]
Islander E. Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy
Petition for review of a decision by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) denying a "water quality certification" for plaintiff to build a natural gas pipeline across the Long Island Sound is denied where: 1) record evidence supported the CTDEP's finding that plaintiff's proffered techniques for installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards; and 2) based on the record, the CTDEP's denial of certification was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. (Substituted opinion)
[05/01]
Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
In a coverage dispute brought by a general contractor arising from injuries sustained by a worker on a staircase installed by a subcontractor, a ruling finding that subcontractor's insurer had a duty of defense and indemnity is reversed where: 1) the victim's injury stemmed from slipping on fireproofing material applied by an entirely separate company unaffiliated with insured-subcontractor; and 2) because the general contractor admitted that its claims of negligence against subcontractor were without factual merit, it conceded that the staircase was merely the situs of the accident, and thus foreclosed arguments of any connection between the victim's accident and the risk for which the coverage was intended.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[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]
Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.
[05/07]
Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.
[05/07]
Moss v. County of Humboldt
In an appeal considering the appropriate level of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a subdivision project which was initially approved but subsequent delays caused its tentative map to expire, judgment denying landowner's petition for writ of mandate and requiring the preparation of a new environmental impact report is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the subdivision at issue was not a new project for purposes of CEQA; 2) supplemental environmental review was required based on new information about certain potentially significant impacts; but 3) substantial evidence supported some findings regarding these impacts, while not others.
[05/07]
Atamirzayeva v. U.S.
In an action seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment for an alleged taking of property plaintiff-Uzbek citizen owned in Uzbekistan, dismissal of the takings claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to plead a significant connection to the United States other than her property being located next to the U.S. Embassy.
More...
|
