Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.
[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.
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
[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.
[11/30] US v. Martin
In an appeal from an order of the district court directing a criminal forfeiture, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and after the appellants were convicted on drug-related offenses, order is affirmed where the Rule 32.2 deadline, as it then existed, is most persuasively understood as a time-related directive rather than a jurisdictional condition, and because appellants were on notice at the time of sentencing that the district court would enter forfeiture orders.
More...
Bankruptcy Law
[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.
[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.
More...
|
