by Olivia LaRosa 2/3/2012
From Findlaw.com's Weekly Summary of Opinions: Civil Procedure, Week of 1/31/2012 - 2/3/2012
Banks Ripping Us Off in Yet Another Way
United States Ninth Circuit, 02/01/2012
GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer Street Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 10-56219
In a suit alleging breach of lease agreements that the defendant bank assumed after it purchased a failed bank's assets and liabilities from the FDIC pursuant to the terms of a written purchase and assumption agreement, the district court's grant of the bank's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where under federal common law, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit under the agreement because it was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. Read more...
Where was her attorney, AWOL, ffs? WTF! Plus, turning down an offer in compromise is not supposed to affect the final outcome in a suit such as this.
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2012/g044718.html&DCMP=NWL-pro_civpro
In a wrongful termination suit that the plaintiff lost and after which the defendant filed a memorandum of costs, the trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to tax those costs is affirmed, where the costs were properly calculated and awarded in all respects, and Code of Civil Procedure section 998(c) gives the trial court the discretion to award expert fees to the defendant, regardless of whose witness the expert is, if the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award after rejecting an offer to compromise. Read more...
A legally protected entity claims stupidity and wins...
California Court of Appeal, 02/02/2012
Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Ass'n, Inc., No. B230595
In a case in which judgment was entered in favor of a condominium association on a complaint for failure to perform its duties, against a plaintiff who subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the association is affirmed, where: 1) although the motion for fees was not timely filed, there was good cause for the delay, as it was understandable that the association was mistaken on the complex and debatable issue of whether the bankruptcy stay tolled the limitations period; and 2) although the trial court's articulated rationale for granting the fees was erroneous, its acceptance of the association's tolling argument was tantamount to a finding of good cause based on mistake. Read more...
Company goes bankrupt to avoid paying legally contracted wages
United States Fourth Circuit, 02/02/2012
Gentry v. Siegel, No. 10-2418
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. Read more...
From Findlaw.com's Weekly Summary of Opinions: Civil Procedure, Week of 1/31/2012 - 2/3/2012
Banks Ripping Us Off in Yet Another Way
United States Ninth Circuit, 02/01/2012
GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer Street Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 10-56219
In a suit alleging breach of lease agreements that the defendant bank assumed after it purchased a failed bank's assets and liabilities from the FDIC pursuant to the terms of a written purchase and assumption agreement, the district court's grant of the bank's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where under federal common law, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit under the agreement because it was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. Read more...
Where was her attorney, AWOL, ffs? WTF! Plus, turning down an offer in compromise is not supposed to affect the final outcome in a suit such as this.
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2012/g044718.html&DCMP=NWL-pro_civpro
In a wrongful termination suit that the plaintiff lost and after which the defendant filed a memorandum of costs, the trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to tax those costs is affirmed, where the costs were properly calculated and awarded in all respects, and Code of Civil Procedure section 998(c) gives the trial court the discretion to award expert fees to the defendant, regardless of whose witness the expert is, if the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award after rejecting an offer to compromise. Read more...
A legally protected entity claims stupidity and wins...
California Court of Appeal, 02/02/2012
Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Ass'n, Inc., No. B230595
In a case in which judgment was entered in favor of a condominium association on a complaint for failure to perform its duties, against a plaintiff who subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the association is affirmed, where: 1) although the motion for fees was not timely filed, there was good cause for the delay, as it was understandable that the association was mistaken on the complex and debatable issue of whether the bankruptcy stay tolled the limitations period; and 2) although the trial court's articulated rationale for granting the fees was erroneous, its acceptance of the association's tolling argument was tantamount to a finding of good cause based on mistake. Read more...
Company goes bankrupt to avoid paying legally contracted wages
United States Fourth Circuit, 02/02/2012
Gentry v. Siegel, No. 10-2418
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. Read more...
No comments:
Post a Comment