Legal News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[05/08] Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

[05/06] In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

[03/11] In Re: Strack
In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, a decision finding a particular debt dischargeable is reversed where: 1) the debt arose by reason of debtor's "defalcation," or nonfraudulent default, while he was acting in a fiduciary capacity; and 2) consequently, 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4) renders the debt non-dischargeable.

More...

Family Law

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

[04/25] State of California Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt
In a case involving whether the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) complied with an order requiring it to provide for the review of all foster care cases open on or after March 3, 2003, for benefits eligibility under a prior case's construction of a statute determining eligibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program, denial of motions to enforce the judgment is reversed in part insofar as the court failed to address a request to authorize discovery regarding the agencies' compliance. Grant of agencies' motion for relief from judgment as of the date of the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the agencies to implement the DRA as Congress intended.

[04/23] State Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Superior Court (D.P.)
The juvenile court has the authority to order a dependent child returned to the home of designated prospective adoptive parents when, after a hearing held to determine whether the removal of a child from the home of prospective adoptive parents is in the minors' best interest, the court is of the opinion that an emergency removal occurring some three months earlier was in the minors' best interests but events which occurred since the removal justify returning the minors to the designated prospective adoptive parents' home. Furthermore, section 361.4 of Welf. & Inst. Code does not limit the juvenile court's discretion to order a minor returned to prospective adoptive parents after a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26(n).

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[05/08] Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.

[05/08] Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm'n
In an action wherein plaintiff attempted to set aside a decision by the California Coastal Commission denying a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act, and sought for damages on regulatory taking grounds, judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative or ordinary mandate and dismissing plaintiff's taking claim as unripe is affirmed where: 1) the agency had the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conformed to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act; 2) the agency's reasons for denying the permit were well supported by the record; and 3) the agency only issued one formal decision which neither foreclosed the question of what development will be allowed, nor precluded plaintiff from submitting other development plans.

[05/08] Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.

[05/07] Moss v. County of Humboldt
In an appeal considering the appropriate level of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a subdivision project which was initially approved but subsequent delays caused its tentative map to expire, judgment denying landowner's petition for writ of mandate and requiring the preparation of a new environmental impact report is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the subdivision at issue was not a new project for purposes of CEQA; 2) supplemental environmental review was required based on new information about certain potentially significant impacts; but 3) substantial evidence supported some findings regarding these impacts, while not others.

[05/07] Atamirzayeva v. U.S.
In an action seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment for an alleged taking of property plaintiff-Uzbek citizen owned in Uzbekistan, dismissal of the takings claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to plead a significant connection to the United States other than her property being located next to the U.S. Embassy.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/06] Hadley v. Gutierrez
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.

[05/05] OSI, Inc. v. US
In an action relating to the Air Force's use of certain land, now owned by plaintiff, as a landfill in prior decades, wherein plaintiff raised tort claims under the Federal Tort Acts (FTCA), claims of cost recovery under the CERCLA, and a citizen suit under the Resource Conversation Act (RCRA), summary judgment for government is affirmed where: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's RCRA citizen suit claim while federal facility remedial action was ongoing; and 2) the remaining aspects of plaintiff's appeal were without merit.

More...