FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[11/14] H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.

[11/10] Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.

[11/06] In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.

[11/04] In Re: Sterten
In a bankruptcy proceeding, upon debtor's challenge to the claim of a mortgage corporation, seeking rescission of the loan upon which the claim was based, judgment in favor of creditor is affirmed, where a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) defendant who does not specifically defend on the ground that any inaccuracies in its disclosure fell within the tolerance range provided by TILA does not waive the protection that provision provides.

[11/03] MSK EyEs LTD v. Wells Fargo Bank
In an action raising a number of claims arising from the parties' banking relationship, summary judgment for defendant-Wells Fargo Bank is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar plaintiffs' claims premised on Wells Fargo's activities in filing a state court action and in enforcing the resulting judgment; 2) neither plaintiff had a viable breach of contract claim against the bank; 3) on the merits, summary judgment for the bank on defamation, credit defamation, business disparagement, tortious interference, negligence, and garnishment claims was proper.

[10/28] Christ v. Beneficial Corp.
In a claim against lender-defendant and affiliated corporations for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), certification of an injunctive class, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff class, and award of injunctive relief and over $22 million in restition or disgorgement are vacated and the case is remanded where: 1) injunctive relief was not a remedy available under TILA to plaintiff and the plaintiff class, Rule 23(b)(2) certification under TILA was improper; and 2) the district court erred by invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act to award the restitution remedy.

Read More

Bankruptcy Law

[11/17] Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure
In a bankruptcy case in which debtor had embezzled and subsequently repaid funds from his employer, and employer had later been required to return those funds to the bankruptcy estate, dismissal of employer's complaint alleging that it had a nondischargeable claim against debtor is reversed where a creditor that is required to return to the trustee a payment from the debtor made within the ninety-day preference period still maintains a claim against the debtor for a nondischargeable claim.

[11/13] In re: Lanning
For purposes of calculating the "projected disposable income" of an above-median Chapter 13 debtor under amendments to the bankruptcy code effected by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, the circuit court adopts the "forward-looking approach," wherein a Chapter 13 debtor's six-month, pre-petition "disposable income" (as defined by statute) is presumed to be the debtor's "projected disposable income" for purposes of establishing the monthly sum that the debtor must commit to repayment of unsecured creditors in order to advance a confirmable payment plan and overcome objections to it. Also, the amount of projected disposable income is rebuttable upon a showing of special circumstances at the time of plan confirmation.

[11/13] Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.

[11/06] In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.

[11/06] Moglia v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co.
In a bankruptcy-related action in which debtor's trustee sought partial release of letters of credit issued by debtor to defendants-insurers, and defendants in turn sought to enforce an arbitration provision in the policies, trustee's appeal of a district court order compelling arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the trustee could be required to sign the arbitrator's hold-harmless agreement; 2) an appeal from the order to sign the agreement was interlocutory in nature, and appellate review was not available; and 3) the court could not review the order under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction.

[11/05] In the Matter of: Caneva
In the context of bankruptcy, when a debtor owns and controls numerous business entities and engages in substantial financial transactions, the complete absence of recorded information related to those entities and transactions establishes a prima facie violation of 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(3). Also, when a debtor transfers a substantial amount of money to a third party, the failure to keep any documentation evidencing the terms of the transfer or the fact that the payment actually took place establishes a prima facie violation of section 727(a)(3).

Read More

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[11/14] Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).

[11/12] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.

[11/12] Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.

[11/10] Bus. Sys. Eng'g, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
In a diversity suit alleging a breach of contract when defendant allegedly failed to utilize and pay for the full value of work agreed upon with plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where only individual statements of work and their corresponding purchase orders constituted contractual agreements between the parties, and no other enforceable agreements existed.

[11/07] Aquila, Inc. v. C.W. Mining
In a contract action involving a contract between the parties wherein defendant supplied plaintiff-public utility periodic shipments of coal from defendant's mine, a judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to prove that its performance was excused by virtue of a force majeure labor dispute, and the district court did not err in finding that geological problems caused defendant's difficulties; 2) defendant failed to offer any evidence to determine what part of plaintiff's losses were attributable to labor problems versus geological problems, and thus damages could not be reduced without impermissible speculation; 3) even accepting for argument's sake a claim that Missouri does not enforce contract provisions requiring written notice of a force majeure when actual notice of a force majeure exists, the circumstances here did not support the claim; 4) plaintiff did not waive its claim for breach of contract; and 5) it properly mitigated its damages.

Read More