FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[12/01] UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Co.
In a company's action seeking a declaratory judgment that its failure to file timely reports with the SEC violated no duties owed to its noteholders, wherein defendant-trustee asserted various counterclaims, summary judgment for plaintiff-company is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's delinquent filing of its form 10-Q did not amount to a default on the notes; and 2) plaintiff met all of its contractual and statutory duties, and noteholders were not entitled to accelerated payments.

[11/25] Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank
In an action to determine whether there was fraud in the execution of a brokerage account agreement, in particular the arbitration clause, denial of motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court cannot treat the arbitration provision differently than other contract provisions; 2) the arbitration provision in the agreement was not unconscionable; and 3) the trial court must decide the plaintiffs' constructive fraud defense.

[11/24] LaBarge Pipe & Steel Co. v. First Bank
In a suit alleging tort and contract claims relating to a letter of credit issued by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) a facsimile letter of credit presented by plaintiff was not an original letter of credit, and plaintiff's attempt to draw on the letter was therefore invalid; but 2) an "incurable defect" exception to the provisions of Uniform Customs and Practice Article 16(d) did not apply, and defendant could not raise the defective presentation as a defense to honoring the amount of plaintiff's draw on the letter of credit; and 3) plaintiff did not produce evidence that it relied on alleged negligent misrepresentations by defendants.

[11/21] Dominguez v. Washington Mutual Bank
In a claim for job discrimination based upon sexual orientation, summary judgment in favor of defendant-Washington Mutual Bank is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) triable issues of fact existed concerning whether plaintiff timely exhausted her administrative remedies as to the existence of discrimination; 2) the cases is remanded because plaintiff may not maintain an action for job retaliation defendant-coworker; and 3) the court did not err in its finding that plaintiff could not raise triable issues of fact on her punitive damages claim.

[11/20] Morgenthau v. Avion Res. Ltd.
In a civil forfeiture action seeking to obtain proceeds of an allegedly illegal international monetary transfer scheme, dismissal of complaint is reversed where service of process pursuant to CPLR 313 on defendants in Brazil was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs were not compelled to serve defendants in accordance with Brazil's service requirements via letters rogatory.

[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. (Revised opinion)

Read More

Bankruptcy Law

[12/02] Trusted Net Media v. The Morrison Agency
In a bankruptcy case, decision affirming bankruptcy court's denial plaintiff's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. section 303(b) did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction; and thus 2) plaintiff's objection to the involuntary petition on grounds of non-compliance with section 303(b) was waived.

[11/24] Spencer v. Marshall
In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter, decision finding defendant was an equity purchaser and plaintiff was an equity seller and therefore the transaction came under the protection of the Home Equity Sales Contract Act (HESCA) is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) plaintiff's sale of property to individual as his assignee was outside the scope of HESCA; and 2) the sale fell under the exceptions to an equity purchaser set forth in section 1695.1 subdivisions (a)(4) and (a)(5).

[11/24] Baldi v. Samuel Son & Co., Ltd.
In a bankruptcy action involving the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which allows a trustee in bankruptcy to avoid transfers made by the bankrupt if the debtor was insolvent on the date of the transfer, ruling for the debtor is affirmed where: 1) a company has enough capital to be able to maintain operations until the end of the curtailment period and then to reopen and operate it until it earns substantial revenue; and 2) undercapitalization is not insolvency.

[11/24] LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Brinley
In a bankruptcy matter, court order allowing trustee to revoke his abandonment of defendants' real property is affirmed where: 1) the trustee was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6) "based on principles of equity, and the windfall to the debtors and the junior lienholders [if the abandonment were not revoked]; and 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the equities weighed in favor of revoking the abandonment.

[11/24] LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Brinley
In a bankruptcy matter, court order allowing trustee to revoke his abandonment of defendants' real property is affirmed where: 1) the trustee was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6) "based on principles of equity, and the windfall to the debtors and the junior lienholders [if the abandonment were not revoked]; and 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the equities weighed in favor of revoking the abandonment.

[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.

Read More

Commercial Law

[12/03] Andrzejewski v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
In proceedings arising after the FAA revoked petitioner's commercial pilot's license via emergency order, pilot's petition for review of an NTSB order reversing an ALJ's decision in pilot's favor is granted and the matter remanded where the NTSB's failure to give the ALJ's implicit credibility determination the requisite level of deference was contrary to NTSB precedent and, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

[11/25] Glencoe v. Neue Sentimental Film AG
In a matter arising out of a commercial property lease, order denying defendants attorneys fees is affirmed where: 1) when a contract provides that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees and the plaintiff dismisses the action with prejudice after the start of trial, the defendant is not entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party; and 2) the defendant did not make statutory offer to compromise within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and could not recover attorney fees as costs under that statute.

[11/24] LaBarge Pipe & Steel Co. v. First Bank
In a suit alleging tort and contract claims relating to a letter of credit issued by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) a facsimile letter of credit presented by plaintiff was not an original letter of credit, and plaintiff's attempt to draw on the letter was therefore invalid; but 2) an "incurable defect" exception to the provisions of Uniform Customs and Practice Article 16(d) did not apply, and defendant could not raise the defective presentation as a defense to honoring the amount of plaintiff's draw on the letter of credit; and 3) plaintiff did not produce evidence that it relied on alleged negligent misrepresentations by defendants.

[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).

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

Read More