In Shahani v. United Commercial Bank, appellant Ray Shahani entered into a construction loan agreement with the bank to develop property, but after disputes involving contractor abandonment and mechanic's liens, the bank declared default and foreclosed on the property. Shahani sued for wrongful foreclosure and breach of the loan agreement, but the bankruptcy court entered judgment for the bank, which this court affirms. The court reasoned that Shahani breached the agreement first by failing to respond to the bank's requests and resolve lien issues, excusing the bank's further disbursements and justifying the foreclosure, and found no basis for estoppel claims due to lack of intent or misrepresentation by the bank.
In Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., homeowners who had obtained a loan modification after defaulting on their mortgage sued the bank under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, alleging that the bank repeatedly sent erroneous notices of default and threatened foreclosure despite the modification agreement being in place. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss both claims with prejudice. It held that the FDCPA claims failed because the bank qualified as a creditor rather than a debt collector under the statute and its actions were more akin to servicing than debt collection. The ECOA claims failed because the erroneous notices did not constitute an adverse action revoking the modification terms, and no adverse action notice was required for communications relating to an account already in default.
This case involves lawsuits arising from the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447, with plaintiffs seeking to hold American component manufacturers liable in U.S. courts. The court previously dismissed related actions on forum non conveniens grounds, finding France to be an adequate alternative forum, and here it addressed new filings that omitted French defendants in an effort to render France unavailable. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs could not manufacture jurisdictional uncertainty by strategically dropping French parties they had previously implicated and then rely on that uncertainty to avoid dismissal. It also denied the motion for reconsideration, as the new filings did not alter the basis for the original ruling. The decision rested on precedents that prevent parties from defeating an alternative forum through their own purposeful conduct and on the balance of private and public interest factors favoring trial abroad.
This case involves a dispute between two companies selling virtual breedable animals in the online world Second Life, where Ozimals sent a DMCA takedown notice to the platform operator alleging copyright infringement by Amaretto's virtual horses, prompting Amaretto to seek injunctive relief and file claims including DMCA misrepresentation, tortious interference, unfair competition, and copyright misuse. The court granted Ozimals's motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the DMCA section 512(f) claim with prejudice and the tortious interference claim without prejudice, while denying dismissal of the unfair competition and copyright misuse claims and maintaining the preliminary injunction. The reasoning for dismissal of the tortious interference claim centered on insufficient particularity in pleading fraud-based allegations, whereas the copyright misuse claim was deemed viable as an affirmative claim in this context.
This case involved a former Merrill Lynch financial advisor who left to join a competitor and was denied unvested long-term incentive benefits, leading him to pursue arbitration claims for breach of contract and interference with his right to compete under California Civil Code section 52.1. The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff plan payments plus emotional distress damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees, after which the defendant moved to vacate the award on grounds that the arbitrator improperly used two undisclosed research attorneys. The court denied the motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm and correct the award. It reasoned that while disclosure of research assistance would have been best practice, the defendant failed to show misconduct or breach of contract by the arbitrator, had prior notice via an invoice, and waived any objection by not raising the issue during the arbitration proceedings. Under both California and federal arbitration law, awards may be vacated only on limited grounds such as arbitrator misconduct causing prejudice.
This case involves a class action challenging San Francisco's policies of conducting strip searches on arrestees booked into county jails, including searches without individualized suspicion or before classification for housing. After the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bull v. San Francisco upheld the constitutionality of certain classification-based searches and eliminated related claims, plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add new subclasses and a new named plaintiff, Brian Vowell, as a representative for claims involving searches before classification and under California Penal Code § 4030. The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment, permitting Vowell to serve as representative only for the subclass of arrestees searched without classification (subclass 2) due to the change in law, but denying addition for the § 4030 subclass (subclass 3) because of undue prejudice from the late stage of proceedings. The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all damage claims against the City under § 4030, finding the claims were not properly preserved or noticed in prior complaints. Core reasoning centered on the impact of the Ninth Circuit ruling, the timing of proposed amendments after years of litigation, and the lack of prior notice to defendants regarding specific § 4030 issues like phone access for bail.
