News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[01/12] Bowers v. Whitman
In an appeal from an order of dismissal by the district court, order is affirmed where Oregon's modification of the remedies available under Measure 37 is not a constitutional taking because: 1) any potential property interest that plaintiffs had for compensation or a specific type of land use under Measure 37 had not vested; and 2) Measure 49 does not contravene substantive due process, as it does not implicate fundamental rights or fail rational basis scrutiny.

[12/15] MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez
Dismissal for want of federal admiralty and maritime subject matter jurisdiction over fishing vessel owner's complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability Act is affirmed where: 1) slip-and-fall accident that took place on a ramp leading from the marina to a floating dock that passengers were required to traverse in order to access the vessel did not occur on or over navigable waters; and 2) the Act did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

[12/14] F.C. Wheat Maritime Corporation v. US
In an appeal from the district court's award of damages to appellants' in a dispute arising from an allision between a United States Army Corps of Engineers vessel and a private yacht owned by the appellants, judgment is affirmed over appellants' various challenges to the court's determination of damages due them.

[12/13] India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd.
In a Rule B maritime attachment and garnishment action to secure an arbitration judgment against the charterer of a damaged oil tanker, the district court's order vacating the attachment of a check released to the charterer from the Southern District’s Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) is affirmed, as the CRIS check, which represented the proceeds of electronic funds transfers that are beyond the reach of the district court, is not properly subject to attachment.

Read More

Bankruptcy Law

[02/09] McDaniel v. Blust
In a suit regarding conduct by members of a law firm and an accountant during bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before filing suit as required by the Barton doctrine.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

[02/02] Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
In a case in which judgment was entered in favor of a condominium association on a complaint for failure to perform its duties, against a plaintiff who subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the association is affirmed, where: 1) although the motion for fees was not timely filed, there was good cause for the delay, as it was understandable that the association was mistaken on the complex and debatable issue of whether the bankruptcy stay tolled the limitations period; and 2) although the trial court's articulated rationale for granting the fees was erroneous, its acceptance of the association's tolling argument was tantamount to a finding of good cause based on mistake.

[01/30] Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders denying a creditor's motion to compel arbitration and disallowing its claim is affirmed, where: 1) the resolution of the creditor's claim was a core matter in the bankruptcy; 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor's motion to compel arbitration; 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give the creditor further opportunity for discovery; 4) the creditor's claim was properly disallowed because because the debtor's covenants in a settlement agreement were purported prepetition waivers of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, which need not be permitted.

Read More