Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[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.

[09/02] 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.

[08/27] Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Rea
District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) because the government concedes defendant's argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress, defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy are vacated; 2) the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant's co-conspirators and any error related to an agent's testimony was harmless; 4) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 5) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant's conviction for conspiracy as based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 6) district court's calculation errors did not affect co-defendant's substantial rights.

Read More

ERISA

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for benefits and for unlawful discrimination under ERISA, as well as several related state law claims, arising from denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits under defendant's Displacement Program, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as, although the district court erred in applying a heightened standard of review and by considering the extra-record evidence that managers helped plan plaintiff's termination prior to the sale of the company, it is nonetheless clear that defendant abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for benefits.

[08/30] Bell v. Pfizer, Inc.
In an action for failure to provide ERISA benefits, judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerned only plaintiff's stock benefits under a non-ERISA plan and, therefore, did not violate any fiduciary obligations under ERISA.

[08/17] Marshall v. Baggett
In an action to recover delinquent contributions to an ERISA plan, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where the district court erred in granting the default judgment because the complaint did not support a judgment against defendant in her individual capacity.

Read More

Family Law

[09/02] In re Jose C.
Juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in finding that the child was likely to be adopted; and 2) juvenile court did not err in failing to consider "presumed father" status for the grandfather.

[09/02] In re H.S.
Juvenile court's orders adjudicating minors to be dependent children and removing them from parental custody are affirmed as the tern "new evidence" in section 388 means material evidence that, with due diligence, the party could not have presented at the dependency proceeding at which the order, sought to be modified or set aside, was entered, and here, the father's section 388 motion relied on a expert opinion that was based not on any new evidence, but on the same evidence available to the experts who testified at trial. Further, to allow the belated new opinion evidence to support a section 388 motion would be contrary to the public policy calling for promptness and finality of juvenile dependency proceedings in order to protect the best interests of the child.

[09/02] In re A.L.
In dependency proceedings, trial court's dispositional order that minor child be returned to the custody of her mother and an order of family enhancement services is affirmed where: 1) because parental custody of the child was not disrupted by the dispositional order, and the child was not placed in foster care, there is no current need to "reunify" this family; and 2) father has made no showing that the "family enhancement" services ordered for him were not reasonable or did not constitute child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency.

[08/31] In re A.M.
An order declaring a father's minor children dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(f) is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the court's section 300(f) jurisdictional finding that the father caused the death of a minor child through neglect; and 2) after considering all of the evidence and having the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, the juvenile court was in the best position to make the credibility findings concerning the father's statements.

Read More