Case Summaries

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/05] US v. Edwards
In a prosecution for wire fraud and related crimes, defendant's conviction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made after he rested his defense; 2) he was denied a fair trial and the ability to confront witnesses when the district court permitted several prosecution witnesses to remain in the courtroom and listen to testimony before they took the witness stand; 3) the court erred in denying a motion to suppress certain documents submitted to the SEC during its investigation of a sale and lease-back program; and 4) the court's jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. However, defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing where, although defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering, he only received one sentence.

[05/01] Jericho Water Dist. v. One Call Users Council, Inc.
With respect to Gen. Bus. Law section 761, which requires apportioning the costs of the "one-call notification system" among the operators of underground facilities who belong to it, but exempts "municipalities" from paying a share of the costs, the court of appeals rules that a "water district" is not a municipality for these purposes and must pay its share of the cost.

[05/01] MAS Capital, Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences Int'l, Inc.
In a removed suit brought by plaintiff, which was incorporated in Nevada and had its principal place of business in Taiwan, against defendant-citizen of Delaware and New Jersey over monies owed for services rendered, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 because the foreign principal place of business does not count for jurisdictional purposes; and 2) on the merits, plaintiff signed a release to any claim of additional compensation.

[03/11] In Re: Strack
In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, a decision finding a particular debt dischargeable is reversed where: 1) the debt arose by reason of debtor's "defalcation," or nonfraudulent default, while he was acting in a fiduciary capacity; and 2) consequently, 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4) renders the debt non-dischargeable.

More...

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC
In a case primarily addressing whether a realtor who represented the lessee in a complex commercial lease transaction had a duty to inform the lessor, after the lease was signed but before the lessee took possession, that the lessee's ability to perform the conditions of the lease was jeopardized by its deteriorating financial condition, the judgment below is affirmed primarily as the trial court did not err: 1) in determining that the lessor failed to plead facts sufficient to establish any duty on the realtor's part; nor 2) in refusing to award attorney fees to the lessor based upon its defeat of the realtor's claims for unpaid commissions pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

[04/30] City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
In an action involving the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides that any "qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending", the circuit court finds that: 1) a claim by the city of New York, predicated on New York Penal Law section 240.45, did not fall within an exception to the claim restricting provisions of the Act; and 2) the PLCAA was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and the PLCAA did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or otherwise offend the Constitution in any manner alleged by the city.

More...