FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[09/30] Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.

[09/25] US v. Able Time, Inc.
In an suit involving allegedly counterfeit watches seized by Customs and the resulting civil penalties imposed, grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tariff Act does not contain an identity of goods or services requirement; and 2) as a matter of law, goods imported by defendant could not be "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" under 19 U.S.C. section 1526(e) because the owner of the trademark in question did not at the time make the type of goods imported by defendant.

[09/25] Direct TV, Inc. v. Webb
In a dispute arising from piracy of satellite television signals, a judgment of unauthorized reception of broadcast signals in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(4), 18 U.S.C. section 2511(1)(a) and 47 U.S.C. section 605(a) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(4) does not apply to end users of pirate access devices; and 2) though circumstantial evidence can sustain claims under 18 U.S.C. section 2511(1)(a) and 47 U.S.C. section 605(a), possession of multiple pirate access devices does not constitute multiple violations of these statutes.

More...

Bankruptcy Law

[09/29] DaimlerChrysler Financial Servs. Ams. v. Barrett
In a matter of first impression, order overruling plaintiff's objection to defendant's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan and confirming plan is vacated where: 1) a creditor may pursue an unsecured deficiency claim when the debtor surrenders a 910 vehicle; 2) the deficiency claim was to be governed by the parties' contract and applicable state law, and depends on whether the contract and state law provide for recourse; 3) nothing in the Bankruptcy Code says otherwise, and there is no persuasive reason to conclude otherwise.

[09/24] In Re: Adelphia Communications Corp.
In a bankruptcy action, dismissal of appeal is affirmed where a court may withdraw a committee's derivative standing and transfer the management of its claims, even in the absence of that committee's consent, if the court concludes that such a transfer is in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate.

[09/24] In Re: James and Karen Wornick
In a bankruptcy appeal to holding that certain assets in connection with life insurance policies appellants each held for the benefit of the other were not exempt from the joint administration of their bankruptcy estates, district court order is reversed where: 1) any leviable interest in this property belonged to the owner/insured, not to the beneficiary; 2) section 3212(b)(1) protects the cash surrender value from the creditors of the owner/insured; and 3) because the beneficiary owned no administrable interest, the property was not subject to administration.

More...