Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Education
Civil Procedure
[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.
[09/03]
Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.
[09/03]
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/03]
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hyatt
District court's order of contempt and award of attorney's fees against nonparties for their failure to adequately respond to two subpoenas duces tecum served on them by the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with litigation between the SEC and another party is vacated where: 1) Rule 45(e) does not require the court to first order compliance before imposing the sanction of contempt, although Rule 45(c) requires an intervening court order if the recipient of the subpoena objects in writing to the production of documents or things, and here, the nonparties did not serve a written objection; and 2) SEC's notice and motion for a rule to show cause did not provide sufficient notice that the district court would decide the contempt issue at the initial hearing as the notice sought only the issuance of a show-cause order and asked the court to set a hearing at which the merits of the contempt issue would later be adjudicated.
[09/03]
Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
[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.
[09/02]
Galindo-Romero v. Holder
In a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision terminating his formal removal proceedings, the petition is dismissed where the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of petitioner's petition for review because the decisions of the BIA and IJ resulted in no final order of removal.
[09/02]
Vanderkous v. Conley
In a trustee's suit seeking to quiet title to certain real property, trial court's finding that the trustee's attempt to dismiss the action was void ab initio, because it was made after trial court had commenced and after it had entered judgment quieting title in trustee and directing him to pay defendant the full market value of the property as compensation for defendant's equitable interest, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly set aside trustee's purported dismissal of the action; 2) the court properly ordered the trustee to compensate defendant for her equitable interest in the property when it quieted his title to the garage area; and 3) substantial evidence supports the property's valuation as a conforming legal lot.
More...
Civil Rights
[09/03]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc.
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.
[09/03]
Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.
[09/03]
Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.
[09/03]
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/02]
Carlson v. Bukovic
In plaintiff's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against an officer for excessive force and the city for failure to train the officer, district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) mere physical contact by an officer, although significant factor, does not automatically qualify an encounter as a Fourth Amendment seizure; 2) district court correctly submitted the question of whether a seizure took place to the jury; 3) the jury was entitled to determine that, at the time the officer touched plaintiff's arm, officer's action was more exhortatory than commanding; 4) because plaintiff's section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim failed, her failure-to-train claim against the city fails as well; and 5) plaintiff's claim that the district judge was biased need not be addressed as recusal was unnecessary in this case.
[09/02]
Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof; and 2) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.
[09/02]
Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.
[09/02]
Goldhamer v. Nagode
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and under state law, challenging a city ordinance's failure-to-disperse provision of section 8-4-010(d), district court's judgment permanently enjoining the city from enforcing the provision on the ground that it imposes too great a burden on protected free speech and is unconstitutionally vague is vacated and remanded as, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the facial validity of the ordinance at issue as they were not even arguably violating the failure-to-disperse provision when they were arrested for demonstrating against military recruitment, and plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable prospect of future arrest for again violating that same provision.
[09/01]
Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.
More...
Education
More...
|
