This case involves a negligence lawsuit filed by attorneys-in-fact for a nursing home resident, Ms. Stevens, against Urbantus, LLC and Emeritus Corporation after she suffered broken ribs and a collapsed lung while in their dementia care facility, alleging failures in documentation, protocol, staffing, and training following a fall. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the proceedings and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on an Arbitration Agreement signed at the time of admission that covered disputes arising from assisted living services, including those against affiliates and third parties. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable, applicable to the parties and claims here, and involving interstate commerce, with the FAA requiring arbitration rather than judicial resolution. It denied dismissal but granted a stay pending arbitration, reasoning that the statute authorizes a stay and that the agreement's terms governed the resolution of such disputes.
The case concerns U.S. Bank's motion to appoint a receiver over a hotel property in Iowa owned by CB Settle Inn Ltd. Partnership following the borrower's default on an $11.8 million commercial mortgage loan originated in 2005 and later assigned to the plaintiff. After the defendants filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the plaintiff sued in Iowa state court to foreclose and requested a receiver pursuant to explicit consent provisions in the mortgage and assignment of leases documents. The court first determined that service of process on the defendants was valid under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.305(6), then granted the motion, authorizing the receiver to take possession, manage the property, collect rents, and operate the hotel while enjoining interference, with the receivership to continue until sale or dismissal of the action.
In United States v. Engelmann, the defendant, an attorney, was convicted by a jury on nine counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud or wire fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud arising from his involvement in mortgage closings where property prices were inflated on loan documents and kickbacks were paid to buyers without disclosure to lenders. The defendant moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that the court's good faith jury instruction was inadequate and that two FBI agents violated the court's sequestration order under Federal Rule of Evidence 615 by discussing testimony during a recess. The court denied the motion, holding that the good faith instruction was sufficient as given and that any potential sequestration violation caused no prejudice because the agents' testimony was consistent on a collateral matter and the government did not rely on claims of independent testimony in a way that affected the outcome. The court further noted that the evidence of guilt was strong and that the interest of justice did not require vacating the verdict.
This case involved a mosque and its prospective imam challenging USCIS's denial of a Form I-360 petition for a special immigrant religious worker visa. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, ruling that the individual beneficiary lacked standing to contest the denial of an employer-filed petition and that the organization failed to state a viable claim. The core reasoning was that the beneficiary had not maintained lawful immigration status for the two years preceding the petition, as required by regulation, because he had engaged in unauthorized volunteer work and overstayed his B-2 visitor visa. The complaint had also alleged a First Amendment violation, but the court did not reach that issue after finding the regulatory requirements were not met.
This case arose from agreements between EMC National Life Co. (EMCNL) and Employee Benefits Systems, Inc. (EBS) involving insurance sales and contributions to an employee's retirement account, which EBS alleged were improperly diverted, leading to consolidated lawsuits including EBS's civil RICO claim against EMCNL. EBS moved for a pretrial ruling on whether amounts it had already recouped from the employee and EMCNL should be credited against any RICO damages before or after trebling. The court declined to decide the issue, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue what would amount to an advisory opinion because no liability had been established and no actual damages had been determined by concession or verdict. The court directed the parties to brief whether the motion was ripe.
In Andersen v. Khanna, a medical malpractice action was filed in Iowa state court alleging negligence and related consortium claims, with Syngenta Seeds, Inc. later joined as a plaintiff on a subrogation claim under its ERISA health plan after paying some of the plaintiff's medical expenses. After the state court dismissed the subrogation claim on summary judgment, Syngenta attempted to remove the entire case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption and federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the defendants' motion to remand, holding that Syngenta was no longer a party after dismissal of its sole claim, the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and the well-pleaded complaint rule barred federal jurisdiction because the underlying claims were state-law torts not subject to ERISA preemption on the face of the complaint. The ruling stressed that removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed and doubts resolved in favor of remand to state court.