Case Summaries
Banking Law
[04/03] Yeomalakis v. FDIC
In a dispute involving credit card interest rates, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's state law claims and denial of his motion to amend is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that defendant's interest rate increase constituted an illegal penalty was preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act; 2) plaintiff did not adequately argue or explain how defendant's actions were unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of state law; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to allege additional claims under federal and state law. Defendant's motion for an additional 180-day stay to allow for the completion of any administrative claims and plaintiff's motion to substitute or add Chase Bank as a real party in interest are both denied.
[03/30] AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Cos., Inc.
In a dispute involving the fraudulent use of financial information, district court's judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not err in refusing to dismiss plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims as it was adequately alleged under rule 12(b)(6); 2) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim as there was no personal injury or property damage; 3) breach of contract claim properly failed as plaintiff's were not parties to the contracts and not third party beneficiaries; and 4) court properly denied class certification. Order is vacated in part where the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A as the allegations are sufficient for the claim to go forward based on the unfairness theory.
[03/27] Yoppolo v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A.
In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding concerning a bank-to-bank transfer of the Debtor's funds, summary judgment for the Trustee is affirmed, where the transfer actually diminished the Debtor's assets and the "earmark" doctrine did not apply, and thus the transfer was of the Debtor's interest in the property.
[03/20] Rand Corp. v. Moua
In a dispute over the right to rescind a loan secured by a mortgage on a home, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded where plaintiff violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the defendant's three-day right to rescind the transaction, thus giving rise to a three-year period of rescission.
[03/19] Swanson v. Bank of Am., N.A.
In an action brought under the Truth in Lending Act, district court's judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the contract between the parties unambiguously authorized defendant to backdate higher, penalty rates of interest and apply it to the entire billing cycle in which the consumer's default occurred.
[03/17] Murphy v. Nat'l. City Bank
In an action under the Michigan Uniform Commercial Code (MUCC) challenging Defendant-Bank's practice of charging fees as a condition of cashing official checks, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the MUCC is not violated by a bank charging a non-accountholder a fee to cash its teller's check.
[03/16] McCoy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA
In a Truth In Lending Act (TILA) action based on Defendant-Bank's retroactive increase in Plaintiff's interest rates, the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint is reversed, where Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. section 226, requires a creditor to provide contemporaneous notice of interest rate increases.
[03/09] Vaden v. Discover Bank
The District Court's order compelling arbitration is reversed, where a federal court may "look through" a 9 U.S.C. section 4 petition to determine whether it is predicated on a controversy that "arises under" federal law. However, a federal court may not entertain a Section 4 petition based on the contents of a counterclaim where the whole controversy between the parties does not qualify for federal-court adjudication.
More...
Commercial Law
[04/02] CBC Cos. v. Equifax, Inc.
In an antitrust action challenging a fee imposed by consumer reporting agencies for obtaining required data in the residential mortgage-loan industry, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where Plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because the complaint failed to allege more than a conclusory injury to competition.
[03/31] The General Store, Inc. v. Van Loan
In a petition for review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' revocation of Plaintiff's firearm license, the ATF's order is affirmed, where Petitioner's violation of the Gun Control Act was "willful" because the ATF had previously cited Plaintiff for failing to keep adequate records and Plaintiff nonetheless did not do so.
[03/30] Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres
In an action challenging a beer tax exemption as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court erred in finding that the decision of the jurisdictional issue in the earlier Calderón action precluded consideration of that issue in the current suit; 2) plaintiff's action is not barred by the Butler Act limiting federal jurisdiction in Puerto Rico or by principles of comity; 3) the PR Supreme Court's decision in Brewers does not provide a basis for granting defendant's motion to dismiss; and 4) defendant failed to meet the burden of showing sufficient privity between plaintiff and plaintiff's PR beer distributor, and thus the prior final judgment involving the distributor does not preclude the present action.
[03/30] Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres
In an action challenging a beer tax exemption as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court erred in finding that the decision of the jurisdictional issue in the earlier Calderón action precluded consideration of that issue in the current suit; 2) plaintiff's action is not barred by the Butler Act limiting federal jurisdiction in Puerto Rico or by principles of comity; 3) the PR Supreme Court's decision in Brewers does not provide a basis for granting defendant's motion to dismiss; and 4) defendant failed to meet the burden of showing sufficient privity between plaintiff and plaintiff's PR beer distributor, and thus the prior final judgment involving the distributor does not preclude the present action.
[03/30] US v. Endotec, Inc.
In an action by the U.S. to enjoin Defendants' manufacture of allegedly adulterated medical devices, judgment for Defendants is reversed, where Defendants advertised their devices for commercial distribution in violation of the FDA's "custom device" regulations.
[03/30] US v. Endotec, Inc.
In an action by the U.S. to enjoin Defendants' manufacture of allegedly adulterated medical devices, judgment for Defendants is reversed, where Defendants advertised their devices for commercial distribution in violation of the FDA's "custom device" regulations.
[03/27] Brown v. Hovatter
In an Equal Protection, Due Process and Commerce Clause challenge to a state regulation of funeral establishments, judgment for Plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) the regulation did not unjustifiably burden interstate commerce; and 2) the regulation was not wholly arbitrary and thus survived rational basis scrutiny.
More...
Contracts
[04/01] Euclid Chem. Co. v. Vector Corrosion Tech., Inc.
In a dispute over the ownership of patents, district court's judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) the court erred in granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, as the agreement allegedly assigning ownership of one patent from plaintiff to defendant was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence should have been considered to ascertain the parties' intent; and 2) district court abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff had abandoned its bona fide purchaser claim, as the action was a dismissal for failure to prosecute rather than a grant of summary judgment.
[03/31] Cardinal Health 110, Inc. v. Cyrus Pharm., LLC
In a breach of contract action, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in concluding the contract evidenced defendant's intent to be bound personally; 2) the court did not err in concluding the guarantee executed by defendants was supported by adequate consideration; and 3) award of costs and attorney's fees was not an abuse of discretion.
[03/31] Samuel v. Druckman & Sinel, LLP
In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that a fee-sharing agreement between lawyers was invalid, the Appellate Division's order that Defendant referring attorney was not entitled to attorney's fees awarded in connection with a judgment is reversed, where the plain terms of the agreement entitled Defendant to such fees.
[03/31] Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan
In action seeking to amend a damage award from a breach of contract suit where plaintiffs have partially recovered from other sources and have agreed to use this partial recovery as a "set-off" against the judgment, district court's denial of defendant's motion for post-judgment relief pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b) is affirmed where the defendant's did not proceed with clean hands and their disregard for the court's previous orders precludes the relief that they are seeking.
[03/30] AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Cos., Inc.
In a dispute involving the fraudulent use of financial information, district court's judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not err in refusing to dismiss plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims as it was adequately alleged under rule 12(b)(6); 2) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim as there was no personal injury or property damage; 3) breach of contract claim properly failed as plaintiff's were not parties to the contracts and not third party beneficiaries; and 4) court properly denied class certification. Order is vacated in part where the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A as the allegations are sufficient for the claim to go forward based on the unfairness theory.
[03/30] AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Cos., Inc.
In a dispute involving the fraudulent use of financial information, district court's judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not err in refusing to dismiss plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims as it was adequately alleged under rule 12(b)(6); 2) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim as there was no personal injury or property damage; 3) breach of contract claim properly failed as plaintiff's were not parties to the contracts and not third party beneficiaries; and 4) court properly denied class certification. Order is vacated in part where the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A as the allegations are sufficient for the claim to go forward based on the unfairness theory.
[03/27] Chalk v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
In an action based on a defective wireless LAN PC card, the dismissal of a class action complaint pending arbitration is reversed, where the class action waiver in the agreement was unconscionable under Oregon law because it prevented potentially meritorious actions from being filed.
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|