The case involved debtor Francisco Procel's appeal from bankruptcy court orders that converted his Chapter 13 petition to a Chapter 7 liquidation and granted certain creditors in rem relief from the automatic stay. The district court vacated the conversion order in part and affirmed other aspects of the rulings in part before remanding the matter. The core reasoning addressed whether a debtor's preemptive motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b) could be overridden by a later motion to convert under § 1307(c), the debtor's multiple prior filings and nondisclosures, and the bankruptcy court's finding of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors under § 362(d)(4).
This case involves parents of a student with emotional and educational difficulties seeking tuition reimbursement from the Scarsdale Union Free School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for a private placement from April 2008 through June 2009. An Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer both found that the district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education and that the private placement was appropriate, but concluded that equitable factors barred reimbursement; the parents appealed that denial while the district cross-appealed the underlying findings. After reviewing the full administrative record of the student's history in public and alternative schools, evaluations, and IEP processes, the district court granted the parents' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and denied the district's motion.
Plaintiffs Goel and Rainforest sued defendants Bunge and Ramachandran in New York state court, bringing claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud arising from an alleged scheme to divert funds related to a share subscription agreement for eSys. Defendant Ramachandran removed the action to federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 205, asserting that the claims related to a pending Singapore arbitration under the New York Convention. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that removal was improper because the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement and the claims were not sufficiently connected to the Convention to confer federal jurisdiction, while denying the request for attorneys' fees.
This case concerned whether Travelers Indemnity Company was obligated under a commercial general liability insurance policy to defend and reimburse Bridge Metal Industries and its principals for defense costs in two underlying lawsuits brought by National Lighting Company. The suits alleged trade dress infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract, and related claims arising from Bridge Metal's alleged use of confidential information to produce and market competing lighting fixtures. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's, holding that the policy's advertising injury coverage was triggered because the underlying complaints alleged potential liability for injuries caused by the insured's advertising activities. The court further reasoned that exclusions for intentional acts and breach of contract did not eliminate the duty to defend, as some claims could be established without proving intent and the complaints included multiple non-contract causes of action.
This case involves parents seeking reimbursement from a school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for unilaterally placing their learning-disabled child at a private school for the 2007-08 year after disagreeing with the proposed individualized education program (IEP). The State Review Officer (SRO) found that the IEP failed to provide a free appropriate public education but denied reimbursement because the parents did not prove the private placement was appropriate, citing vague progress reports, overly broad grading, and inconsistent evidence of the child's progress. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, upholding the SRO's determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish the private school's suitability. The core reasoning focused on the lack of detailed, measurable data in the reports regarding the child's specific deficits, curriculum, and skill acquisition, making meaningful assessment of progress impossible.
In this case, counterclaimant SAS alleged that Versatile breached the forum selection clause in their 2006 Worldwide Distribution & Royalty Agreement by filing the underlying trademark, copyright, and contract claims in Wisconsin federal court rather than New York. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the breach claim. The court granted SAS summary judgment on its request for damages other than attorneys' fees, but denied it as to fees; it granted Versatile's motion only insofar as it sought to preclude recovery of attorneys' fees as damages. The core reasoning was that New York law permits recovery of foreseeable damages for breach of a forum selection clause but does not treat attorneys' fees incurred in the improper forum as recoverable contract damages absent an independent basis such as statute or the agreement itself.