A bankruptcy court's statutory contempt order issued for a violation of the automatic stay, and that denies compensatory and injunctive damages but incorporates a subsequent award of fees later agreed upon by the parties, is not final for purposes of appeal until the fee order issues.
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Tenth Circuit: C., et al. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company
Despite the issue raised as to whether the plan's administrator complied with the procedures, deferential review of coverage decisions as arbitrary and capricious is appropriate, though the outcome would be the same here absent deference, under de novo review.
Administrator's second medical opinion disregarding independent grounds for coverage was arbitrary and capricious.
Ninth Circuit: Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc. et al.
Court abused discretion in certifying a class with an inadequate representative; the representative was subject to an arbitration agreement that did not bind approximately 5% of the class, there was limited evidence of discovery, and a motion against the move to compel arbitration was made late--as a motion to file a supplementary brief.
Ninth Circuit: Abraham Bielski v. Coinbase Inc.
As long as the challenge to the arbitration agreement mentions the delegation provision and makes arguments against it, the threshold requirement of ensuring that the challenge is within statutory limits is met. In evaluating an unconscionability claim under state law, a court must necessarily look to the entirety of the arbitration agreement.
Although the agreement is per se procedurally unconscionable to some degree as a contract of adhesion, the dispute-resolution processes are not unduly surprising. Under state law, a one-sided agreement lacking mutuality of remedy is not inherently substantively unconscionable. In this case, not overly harsh or one-sided.
CONCURRENCE, CONCURRENCE IN JUDGMENT
The precedent cited to the contrary in other circuits, in which a court looks to the substance of the challenge in the threshold analysis, is not meaningfully distinct from considering whether arguments were made against the provision.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Felipe Lorthridge
Bringing a pre-trial detainee to trial on charges of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony is an important government interest; the court did not clearly err in ordering the administration of antipsychotic medication.
Eighth Circuit: Liberty Insurance Corporation v. HNTB Corporation
Where the contract encompasses both construction management and independent quality assurance, the question of whether the expert was functioning as a manager or an outside expert presents an issue for trial when determining the scope of an insurance policy.
Sixth Circuit: Rudolph Betancourt v. Indian Hills Plaza LLC
No abuse of discretion in fees and costs award, given the quality and manner of representation and securing expert witnesses. Court appropriately reduced lodestar calculation based on unnecessary filings, despite claim that the early fees award motions were justified, since simultaneous remediations of the property might have left the plaintiff as the non-prevailing party.
Sixth Circuit: Bradley M. Peterson v. Kristina M. Johnson
For purposes of the property interest in law, emeritus status at a state university is not considered employment. Absent pay or benefits, the status does not create a property interest at law. Property interest in the status is analogous to a liberty interest in reputation, which procedurally would require a request for a name-clearing hearing to exhaust non-judicial remedies.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Villarreal
Where a Habeas petition claims that a prior offense wasn't a valid predicate because it wasn't limited to crimes involving a use of force, and subsequent to vacatur and remand, a certificate of appealability issues challenging the predicate on the ground that it includes reckless conduct, the fact that pro se prisoner Habeas petitions should be construed liberally allows the original petition to be decided on the latter grounds.
DISSENT:
The distinction between the act and the mental state isn't sophistry; the petition didn't originally intend to raise the recklessness challenge.
Third Circuit: USA v. Jamar Hunter
Where there is more than one passenger in the car, it is not unreasonable for the police officer conducting a traffic stop to conduct an extended criminal history check on the occupants of the car for reasons of officer safety. The check was a negligibly burdensome precaution justified by officer safety concerns.
CONCURRENCE:
The record check was part of the stop itself, so no reasonable suspicion was required. Although required by precedent, reason to doubt that history checks improve officer safety. Racial profiling concerns.
Third Circuit: Maria Del Rosario Hernandez v. MicroBilt Corp
When the arbitration association designated in the consumer contract refuses to arbitrate due to the company's refusal to waive a damages limitation inconsistent with its charter, it isn't a matter of arbitrability that might have to be formally decided by an arbitrator, but a threshold requirement properly decided by the association itself. It speaks to how the agreement operates, rather than whether it applies.
Plaintiff's court claim is not prohibited by the Exclusive Resolution term of the contract, as the plaintiff complied with all arbitration provisions, and claimants can return to court after an arbitration concludes. The return to court is without consideration of the merits of the arbitration, and further arbitration can't be compelled under the contract.
Second Circuit: Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen
There was substantial evidence for agency's determination that petitioner could safely relocate to a politically less dangerous area within home country, and no abuse of discretion in holding that this determination precluded a finding of well-founded fear of future persecution. Determination of the possibility of safe relocation precludes a finding of an objectively reasonable fear of future harm.
Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen
Second Circuit: Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc.
Where an alleged trademark infringer incorporates with distortion the characteristics of the original product that indicate its origin and source, the enhanced First Amendment protections for parodies are properly not considered in the preliminary injunction analysis under the statute.
Given the strength of the original marks, the intention to evoke the original marks by using the distorted design established a likelihood of confusion, especially since the original brand occasionally sold special forms of the shoe. Although it might be difficult to actually wear the shoe, enjoining court's determination to the contrary worthy of deference. No clear error in determination that the alleged infringement was of lower quality, but the court erred in holding that legally this worked in the favor of the party claiming infringement.
No abuse of discretion in ordering escrow of gross revenues, as party seeking injunction sought an accounting, and a damages award would include costs and fees. No error in not requiring bond from party seeking injunction, as non-movant didn't request it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)