Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[05/13] United Stars Indus., Inc. v. Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc.
In an action over monies owed, judgment in favor of plaintiff and sanctions imposed against defendant's attorneys are affirmed where: 1) the compromise that was reached after the initial dispute over pricing and monies owed included defendant's overcharge claims; 2) the contract allowed plaintiff to pass on an increase in costs due to the use of additional materials other than nickel through a surcharge; 3) defendant was liable to pay for the entire cost of the materials bought even though some of it was lost during the production process; and 4) the district judge did not abuse her discretion by sanctioning defendant's lawyers for making unsupported allegations during litigation.
More...
Uniform Commercial Code
[06/25] BRASHER'S CASCADE AUTO AUCTION v. VALLEY AUTO SALES AND LEASING
The former version of the California Uniform Commercial Code requires a merchant buyer to adhere to reasonable commercial standards to obtain the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business for purposes of section 9307.
More...
Asset Forfeiture
[05/13] US v. Padron
Conviction and sentence for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the government's conduct in investigating him amounted to entrapment; 2) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings during trial; and 3) the district court erred in its calculation of victim's loss amount and that it lacked statutory authority to impose a forfeiture money judgment against him.
More...
Bankruptcy Law
[05/14] In re: M & S Grading, Inc.,
In an appeal following a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to require a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failing to pay contributions ordered while the debtor's case was in Chapter 11, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the bankruptcy court's order denying a motion to show cause was not a final appealable order; and 2) the order did not qualify as a collateral order, for purposes of the collateral order doctrine.
More...
|
