This case involved a Chapter 13 debtor who had received a Chapter 7 discharge less than four years earlier and sought to confirm a plan that would strip off a wholly unsecured junior lien on his primary residence. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, finding the lien could be stripped under 11 U.S.C. § 506 because it was wholly unsecured, and the district court affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that the anti-modification provision in § 1322(b)(2) does not apply to unsecured claims, that no other Bankruptcy Code provision bars lien stripping by a debtor ineligible for discharge under § 1328(f)(1), and that the plan otherwise met confirmation requirements including good faith. The decision resolved a split among bankruptcy courts on the permissibility of lien stripping in such "Chapter 20" cases.
The case involved federal prisoner John Louis Atkins filing a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of his sentence for felon in possession of a firearm, specifically the Bureau of Prisons' failure to apply presentence jail credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) and its denial of individualized consideration for residential re-entry center (RRC) placement. The court granted Claims One and Four after dismissing the others, finding that the BOP had not properly credited the applicant's state jail time and had relied on a categorical time limitation rather than an individualized evaluation required by the Second Chance Act under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(c) and 3621(b). The core reasoning was that the BOP's actions violated statutory mandates for sentence computation and RRC decisions, leading to an order for a new individualized RRC assessment within thirty days and proper documentation of compliance.
This case arose from the termination of plaintiff Willie Barlow from his position as a security guard and the end of an oral contract with his janitorial company by defendant C.R. England, Inc. Plaintiff brought claims for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and vacated the trial dates. The ruling rested on the absence of evidence showing discriminatory animus, failure to request disability accommodations, inconsistencies in plaintiff's allegations regarding job modifications, and legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations such as concerns about malingering and policy violations.
In Doshay v. Global Credit Collection Corp., the plaintiff sued a debt collection company for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after receiving a voicemail that failed to identify the caller as a debt collector or disclose that its purpose was to collect a debt. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The ruling rested on undisputed facts showing the message lacked the meaningful disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11), which the FDCPA treats as a strict-liability violation, so only one such breach needed to be established. The case will proceed to trial solely on the issue of damages.
This case involved a plaintiff who sued a county and a nursing home official for violating her rights under the Federal Nursing Homes Reform Amendments (FNHRA) by failing to properly treat a pressure sore during her stay at a county healthcare center. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that the FNHRA does not create a private right of action enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Congress did not unambiguously intend to confer such an enforceable right on individuals based on the statute's language and overall structure.
This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling that a debt arising from an investment in a financial advisory business was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the debtor fraudulently misrepresented the SEC registration status of his company and failed to disclose a de-registration letter. The district court affirmed the finding of nondischargeability but reversed the bankruptcy court's determination that the creditor suffered zero benefit-of-the-bargain damages under Colorado law, holding that the court failed to account for multiple higher values of the company as represented by the debtor. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court to recalculate damages as the difference between the represented values and the actual value of the assets contributed.
