News
Real Estate
[01/05]
Transworld Business Brokers Names Its Top Producer for 2008
[01/05]
NY Fed begins purchasing mortgage securities
[01/05]
Dollar mixed on construction data, Obama plan
Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[12/31]
In the Matter of: Owens
Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor's bad-faith Chapter 11 case rather than converting it to Chapter 7. When deciding between dismissal and conversion under 11 U.S.C. section 1112(b), the court must consider the interests of all the creditors; here, the other creditors would fare worse under Chapter 7 because the accompanying discharge would deny them access to debtor's future income.
[12/31]
In re: Belcher
District court erred in allowing bankrupt husband to claim a homestead exemption in marital home because wife's name alone appeared on the title. Husband's potential equitable property interests in the home under divorce law, and his "possessory interest" in the family residence as spouse of the homeowner, were insufficient to permit him to claim the homestead exemption.
[12/30]
In re: Marshall
Balance transfers from one credit card to another, made by debtors during the ninety-day period prior to the filing of their Chapter 7 petition, are preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. section 547(b). Such payments constitute transfers of "an interest of the Debtor in property," because the debtor exercises control over the loaned proceeds even if he is never in actual possession of them, and such transactions deplete the bankruptcy estate.
Consumer Protection
[12/30]
Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Corp.
District court properly approved settlement of class action involving claims brought by customers against mortgage company who sold their personal information to telemarketers, even though the settlement provided no payment to members of a sub-class consisting of customers who did not purchase anything from telemarketers to whom customers' information was sold. The state law claims of that sub-class were worthless, any claims they belatedly asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act were frivolous, and attorneys for objectors were not entitled to additional attorneys' fees because they provided little or no benefit to the sub-class.
[12/24]
Davis v. Pac. Capital Bank, N. A.
A creditor who imposes a flat finance charge that does not vary with the term of a Refund Anticipation Loan does not have to refund a portion of the charge as "unearned interest" under 15 U.S.C. section 1615 when the loan is repaid earlier than anticipated in the loan agreement.
[12/24]
Doss v. Clearwater Title Co.
In a suit brought under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is reversed and remanded where: 1) there was appellate jurisdiction over the matter; 2) in granting the motion, the district court failed to take the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the pleader; 3) such standard remains in place despite the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Debt Collection
[12/30]
In re: Marshall
Balance transfers from one credit card to another, made by debtors during the ninety-day period prior to the filing of their Chapter 7 petition, are preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. section 547(b). Such payments constitute transfers of "an interest of the Debtor in property," because the debtor exercises control over the loaned proceeds even if he is never in actual possession of them, and such transactions deplete the bankruptcy estate.
[12/29]
Liceaga v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC
In an action for damages arising out of an apparent identity theft, judgment in favor of defendant-collection agency is affirmed where the trial court correctly concluded that Congress has preempted state court private actions against furnishers of inaccurate credit information to credit reporting agencies and that no exclusion for California actions existed.
[12/16]
Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.
Debt collection company did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending debtors settlement offers signed by its senior officers, where: 1) the notices resemble advertisements rather than routine business letters from a corporate executive; and 2) the content of the notices is not such that the least sophisticated debtor would believe he had received a personal letter from the named officer instead of a notice from a company.
False Advertising
[12/15]
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
In an action brought by smokers of "light" cigarettes manufactured by defendants claiming that defendants violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA), the Court rules that: 1) the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not preempt state-law claims like respondents' that were predicated on the duty not to deceive; and 2) the FTC's various decisions with respect to statements of tar and nicotine content do not impliedly preempt plaintiffs' claim.
[06/13]
Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.
[06/04]
Craig Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc
In an action involving multiple claims against a billboard company primarily based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the company's scheme and role in railroad advertising, judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the jury's verdict on plaintiffs' state-law claims was supported by the evidence; 2) the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' calls to harmonize the jury's actual damages awards on plaintiffs' state law claims; 3) jury instructions on the calculation of damages were not erroneous and the evidence supported the damages award; 4) the district court did not err in dismissing a plaintiff's RICO and state-law claims for lack of standing; 5) other plaintiffs failed to establish a RICO claim, since they did not show that the alleged association-in-fact enterprises shared a common purpose; but 6) the district court abused its discretion in capping one plaintiff's punitive damages award at a sum insufficient to cover its litigation expenses expressed in a contingency-fee agreement.