News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[03/10] In Re: Am. Bridge Prods., Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action against an appointed receiver for misfeasance, judgment of the district court finding that plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations is vacated and remanded as the receiver had not rendered a final accounting or been discharged in either state or federal court.

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/08] In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/11] US v. Neff
In a prosecution of defendant for possession of a firearm by a felon and given an enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal, district court's denial of defendant's motion for sentence modification is affirmed where: 1) the time limits in Rule 4(b) are claim-processing rules that can be waived or forfeited; and 2) Amendment 709 substantively changed the sentencing guidelines and it was not made retroactive, and as such, defendant is ineligible for reduction of his sentence.

[03/11] Rehberg v. Paulk
In an action for malicious prosecution, retaliatory investigation and prosecution, and evidence fabrication, a denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity is affirmed in part where plaintiff sufficiently alleged the requisite retaliatory motive, absence of probable cause, and but-for causation to state a retaliatory prosecution claim. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) even if defendants knew one defendant's testimony before a grand jury was false, they still received absolute immunity for the act of testifying to the grand jury; and 2) plaintiff's voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information.

[03/11] US v. Davis
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the use of evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on well-settled precedent, even though in this case the Supreme Court overruled that precedent in Arizona v. Gant.

Read More

ERISA

[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.

[03/01] Jones v. Unum Provident Corp.
In an action under ERISA for wrongful denial of benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant thoroughly investigated plaintiff's claim, both initially and when plaintiff appealed, and its initial and final decisions were carefully reasoned; and 2) coverage under the policy at issue lapsed more than six weeks prior to plaintiff's return to full-time work, and thus her later disability claim was not covered because of a pre-existing condition clause.

[02/26] Overby v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers
In an action seeking a declaration that a purported amendment to a trust plan, which would have rendered plaintiff ineligible to receive benefits under the plan as a surviving spouse, was not properly adopted, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the district court committed no reversible error in either its factual determinations or in its conclusions of law in finding that the trustees of the plan had not submitted the amendment to the fund's actuaries for an evaluation and estimate of its cost, as required by the governing provisions of the plan, and therefore the amendment was not properly adopted.

Read More

Family Law

[03/11] Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

Read More