News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[02/21] In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
In bankruptcy proceedings in which state-law claims were asserted, the district court's decision not to abstain from hearing the claims is reversed and the case remanded to state court, where: 1) mandatory abstention under 28 USC section 1334(c)(2) was appropriate under a four-factor test, given the complexity of the state law issues, the deference owed to state courts in deciding state law issues where possible, and the minimal effect of the state cases on the federal bankruptcy action and on the administration of the underlying estates; and 2) the argument that mandatory abstention did not apply because the cases could have been commenced in federal court had been waived, and was outside the scope of the mandate set forth in a previous opinion of the Second Circuit.

[02/10] In re McCormick
In bankruptcy proceedings in which a bank sought repayment of a loan that it claimed was secured by a deed of trust on two contiguous parcels of the debtor's property, the lower courts' order that the bank's lien on one of the parcels was avoided is affirmed, where: 1) the deed was unrecorded as to that parcel; 2) the bankruptcy trustee was only imputed with the notice of the deed that would be imputed to a bona fide purchaser of the tract under state law; and 2) North Carolina law allowed a purchaser to rely exclusively on the official recordation index of the county to discover liens, regardless of what other independent knowledge that purchaser might have.

[02/09] McDaniel v. Blust
In a suit regarding conduct by members of a law firm and an accountant during bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before filing suit as required by the Barton doctrine.

[02/09] Matter of SK Foods, L.P.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, denied a motion to remove the trustee and disqualify his counsel and to issue a protective order requiring the return of the documents, interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where each of the orders was not a final, appealable order.

Read More

Commercial Law

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Read More

Family Law

[02/15] In re K.P.
The juvenile court's termination of parental rights of both parents over their son is affirmed, where substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the parent-child relationship exception to the statutory preference for adoption.

[02/14] In re A.A.
In a case in which an incarcerated mother's parental rights were terminated, the juvenile court order of termination is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court was not required to consider placing the child with the mother where she was not a nonoffending parent and where custody had previously been removed upon a finding of risk that had not been alleviated; and 2) the mother presented no material change of circumstances to justify a modification of the dispositional order where she was still incarcerated at the time of the petition.

[02/14] In re Michael G.
On parents' appeal of orders terminating their parental rights over their son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed, where: 1) although the juvenile court erred when it did not order a brief continuance of the hearing to allow time to receive the child's psychological evaluation and an updated report from his therapist, the error was harmless in light of other evidence supporting the finding that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time; and 2) there was ample evidence to support the juvenile court's finding there were no applicable exceptions to termination of parental rights.

[02/10] Marriage of Thorne
In marital dissolution proceedings involving the division of property interests in the husband's military pension, the trial court's modification of the judgment to divide the pension according to the "time rule" is reversed, where: 1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the judgment under the relevant statutes of limitations; 2) the omitted-asset exception to the statutes of limitation did not apply, as the words of the judgment expressly divided the entire pension; and 3) the extrinsic-mistake exception did not apply, as the judgment was not unlawful and any mistake by the wife was intrinsic.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/21] Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.
On a claim under Labor Law section 240(1) brought by a worker injured when he fell from a ladder in a factory while cleaning a product manufactured by his employer, the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim, affirmed by the Appellate Division, is affirmed, where the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity the statute protects.

[02/21] Posner v. Lewis
In an action for prima facie tort and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations stemming from pressure and influence exerted by the defendants upon school officials who denied the plaintiff tenure, the order of the Appellate Division denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where the absolute immunity from civil liability for instigating official action articulated in Brandt v Winchell, 3 NY2d 628 (1958) could not be extended to protect the alleged course of conduct, which involved blackmail, intimidation and threatening conduct allegedly directed at the plaintiff.

[02/21] Thomas H. v. Paul B.
In a defamation action alleging that the defendants falsely and maliciously stated that the plaintiff had raped and molested the defendants' daughter, the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed In light of factual discrepancies, where: 1) under the circumstances alleged, a reasonable listener would have understood that the defendants intended to label the plaintiff as a child rapist; and 2) the alleged statements would be actionable even if they were couched in the form of an opinion and even if they were derived from what the defendants' daughter told them.

[02/17] American States Insurance Co. v. LaFlam
In a dispute over whether an insurance company was liable to pay a settlement amount under an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policy issued to an injured driver's employer and containing provisions that imposed a three-year contractual limitations period on UM/UIM claims and specified that the limitations period began to run on the date of the accident, the following question is certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: In light of the UM/UIM statute and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?

Read More

Landlord Tenant

Read More

Workers' Comp

[02/16] Allied Interstate, Inc. v. Sessions Payroll Management, Inc.
In a suit for breach of contract and the common counts of account stated and open book account brought by the successor to a workers' compensation insurer against a payroll company that had been sold and reacquired, the trial court's judgment against the owner of the company is affirmed, where: 1) a 121 percent experience modifier was duly authorized, and the record would not permit the trial court to make the broad-ranging and technical determination that workers' compensation insurance issued to a payroll company should reflect a carryover experience rating; and 2) the change in ownership of the payroll company did not compel policy cancellation.

[02/09] Matter of Cappellino
On a claim for death benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law, the decision of the appellate division in favor of the defendant is reversed and the case remitted to that court to remand to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings, where there was an undisputed finding that the employer untimely filed the notice of controversy and there was no showing of good cause or other reason to excuse the failure, so that the employer should have been precluded from offering its physician's testimony to dispute claimant's evidence on the issue of causation.

[01/11] Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.

[12/13] In the Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Exum
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division permitting arbitration of a claim by plaintiff-employee for uninsured motorist benefits, judgment is affirmed because a self-insured employer whose employee is involved in an automobile accident may be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Read More