The case concerned debtors who filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition after receiving a discharge in a prior Chapter 7 case, proposing a plan to strip a junior mortgage lien that had become wholly unsecured due to a drop in home value while making limited payments on other debts. The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the plan, sua sponte reversed an order disallowing the mortgage creditor's claim, and held that in these "chapter 20" cases a debtor cannot permanently avoid such a lien without a discharge or full payment. On appeal, the district court affirmed, reasoning that lien stripping under the Bankruptcy Code is not permanent absent a discharge or satisfaction of the debt, and that the plan could not be confirmed because it failed to pay all claims in full within the required time limits.
This case is a class action consumer lawsuit in which plaintiffs allege that Provide Commerce, operator of ProFlowers.com, and its marketing partner Encore Marketing International used deceptive pop-up windows and practices to enroll customers in the EASYSAVER Rewards program without consent, sharing their payment information and imposing unauthorized activation and membership fees. The court denied Encore's motion to dismiss entirely, granted in part and denied in part Provide's motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiffs' motion to strike an exhibit. The reasoning centered on the plausibility of fraud, unfair competition, and Electronic Funds Transfer Act claims under California law, finding sufficient allegations of misleading conduct and unauthorized charges while dismissing certain claims for lack of particularity or other pleading deficiencies.
This case involves a South Korean company with its principal place of business in San Diego suing New Jersey- and Missouri-based defendants for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, patent infringement, and related claims arising from the sale and support of automated steel-bending machines. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either general or specific personal jurisdiction under California's long-arm statute and constitutional due process requirements, as the defendants' limited and largely inadmissible contacts with California did not satisfy minimum contacts standards. The court also granted in part and denied in part an ex parte application concerning late-filed evidence but excluded inadmissible materials from its jurisdictional analysis.
This case arose from plaintiff John Fremont Steel IV's allegations that his ex-wife's divorce attorneys, hired private investigators, and San Diego police officers conspired to orchestrate his DUI arrest in August 2007 to generate evidence for a child custody dispute, leading to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations, California Civil Code § 52.1, and various state law torts. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and an anti-SLAPP motion to strike filed by groups of defendants. It granted the attorney defendants' motion to dismiss in full, granted defendant Hasbrouck's motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the city defendants' and investigator defendants' motions to dismiss (allowing some claims like excessive force and conspiracy to proceed with leave to amend in limited respects), and denied the city defendants' motion to strike.
The case was a consolidated securities fraud action against REMEC, Inc. and two executives alleging that the company overstated its financial results during the class period by failing to timely recognize goodwill impairment losses under FAS 142 and by engaging in other improper accounting practices such as inventory valuation and revenue recognition. Plaintiffs brought claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, plus control-person liability under Section 20(a). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions and dismissed the entire case with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the element of scienter. The ruling rested on the absence of evidence showing the defendants acted with an intent to deceive or with deliberate recklessness when making the challenged accounting judgments and disclosures.
This case was a diversity action brought by a U.S. parent company against its insurer over coverage for property damage, business interruption, and extra expenses resulting from Australian wildfires that destroyed the facilities and inventory of its wholly owned Australian subsidiary. The insurer moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, and punitive damages, contending that the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest, that Australian law applied and barred bad-faith recovery, and that the unfair-practices claim was preempted. The court denied summary judgment on the contract, bad-faith, and punitive-damages claims because disputed issues of material fact existed concerning the plaintiff's insurable interest, the insurer's claims-handling conduct, and whether that conduct rose to the level of malice or oppression, but granted summary judgment on the unfair-business-practices claim on the ground that it was barred by the Unfair Insurance Practices Act.
