Case Summaries
[09/03] Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Anderson Senior Living Prop., LLC.
In an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) grant of debtors' motion to dismiss as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 363(m), plaintiffs' appeal of the bankruptcy court's authorization of the sale of debtors' interests in seven co-owned properties as well as the undivided interests of the tenants in common (TIC), is affirmed as the BAP properly determined that section 363(m) moots the appeal because, even though the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the TIC property interests pursuant to section 363(h), the debtors ultimately sold the properties pursuant to section 363(b) and that sale was never stayed.
[09/03] Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.
[09/03] Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/03] U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hyatt
District court's order of contempt and award of attorney's fees against nonparties for their failure to adequately respond to two subpoenas duces tecum served on them by the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with litigation between the SEC and another party is vacated where: 1) Rule 45(e) does not require the court to first order compliance before imposing the sanction of contempt, although Rule 45(c) requires an intervening court order if the recipient of the subpoena objects in writing to the production of documents or things, and here, the nonparties did not serve a written objection; and 2) SEC's notice and motion for a rule to show cause did not provide sufficient notice that the district court would decide the contempt issue at the initial hearing as the notice sought only the issuance of a show-cause order and asked the court to set a hearing at which the merits of the contempt issue would later be adjudicated.
[09/03] Luna v. Holder
Petitions for review of final orders of removal are transferred to the district court for further proceedings where: 1) although the petitions are untimely, the REAL ID Act did not divest district courts of habeas jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claims that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from filing timely petitions for review; and 2) thus, the circuit court need not decide whether the statutory 30-day filing requirement violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases in which an alien misses the deadline because of ineffective assistance of counsel or circumstances created by the government.
[09/03] Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.
[09/03] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Leshin
In the Federal Trade Commission's suit against defendants for providing debt consolidation services in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, district court's judgment holding defendants in contempt for violating a stipulated injunction and ordering defendants to disgorge all fees collected in violation of the injunction is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion by holding the defendants in contempt; 2) district court did not err by holding the counseling center in contempt, by holding defendants individually liable, or by holding the contempt defendants jointly and severally liable; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering disgorgement as the sanction for contempt or in calculating the amount to be disgorged; 4) district court issued civil contempt sanctions and did not violate the contempt defendants' right to due process; and 5) the provision of the final order of disgorgement that allows the Commission to convert unpaid balance into a money judgment is not ripe for review.
[09/03] Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
[09/03] SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald
In an appeal arising from the entry of a contempt order against defendant enforcing a settlement agreement with plaintiff, the contempt order is vacated and remanded where, although the parties and the district court likely intended for the district court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, a stipulation effectively dismissed the case when it was filed, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the
litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.
[09/02] Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd. v. US Trustee
In a creditor's objection to the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee, arguing that the trustee did not qualify as a “disinterested person” as required by 11
U.S.C. section 1104(d), the denial of the objection is affirmed where: 1) the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the trustee's role and interests as a receiver did not predispose him towards forfeiture or amount to a disqualifying material adverse interest; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s determination that creditor failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the trustee's appointment as trustee in the jointly administered estates.
[09/02] Galindo-Romero v. Holder
In a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision terminating his formal removal proceedings, the petition is dismissed where the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of petitioner's petition for review because the decisions of the BIA and IJ resulted in no final order of removal.
[09/02] Vanderkous v. Conley
In a trustee's suit seeking to quiet title to certain real property, trial court's finding that the trustee's attempt to dismiss the action was void ab initio, because it was made after trial court had commenced and after it had entered judgment quieting title in trustee and directing him to pay defendant the full market value of the property as compensation for defendant's equitable interest, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly set aside trustee's purported dismissal of the action; 2) the court properly ordered the trustee to compensate defendant for her equitable interest in the property when it quieted his title to the garage area; and 3) substantial evidence supports the property's valuation as a conforming legal lot.
[09/02] Atlantic Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
In an action seeking insurance proceeds arising from a fire, defendants' appeal from the grant of plaintiff's motion to remand is dismissed where the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a "defect" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).
[09/02] Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.
Back to Main
