This case is an appeal by debtor Peter Paul Mitrano of multiple bankruptcy court orders in an adversary proceeding he filed against the Melkas and the United States. The proceeding sought a declaratory judgment regarding Mitrano's obligation to pay restitution from a prior criminal judgment, to undo an alleged fraudulent conveyance, and to pierce a corporate veil. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decisions, which included dismissing the claims against the Melkas for failure to state a claim, dismissing the United States as a party, denying a stay, and holding that Mitrano lacked standing as a Chapter 13 debtor to pursue fraudulent conveyance actions because that authority belongs exclusively to the trustee. The court also rejected Mitrano's attempt to proceed ex rel. on behalf of the United States and found no error in the denial of his motions for reconsideration or re-transfer.
This case involved a dispute between borrower Breton, LLC and its mortgage lender Lincoln National Life Insurance Company over rights to insurance proceeds from a fire-damaged property and related attorneys' fees from prior coverage litigation. The Deed of Trust assigned all such proceeds to Lincoln National, granted it discretion to apply them to the debt, and required Breton to pay Lincoln National's reasonable attorneys' fees. Breton had entered a contingency fee agreement entitling its lawyers to 15% of recovered amounts. The court granted Lincoln National's motion for summary judgment and denied Breton's, holding that the perfected Deed of Trust gave Lincoln National first priority over the later contingency fee arrangement, that no valid attorneys' lien existed without possession of the funds, and that the contractual provisions entitled Lincoln National to recover its fees and apply proceeds accordingly.
This case is an employment discrimination action in which plaintiff Patricia Weth alleged that defendant Francis X. O'Leary, the Arlington County Treasurer, terminated her from her position as Deputy Treasurer for Litigation in retaliation for taking medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to undergo surgery and treatment for ovarian and uterine cancer. Weth claimed she was effectively demoted on the day she returned from leave by having her duties stripped and was later suspended and terminated. The court granted summary judgment to O'Leary in his official capacity, granted his motion in his individual capacity in part and denied it in part, and denied Weth's motion for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning addressed Eleventh Amendment immunity barring self-care FMLA claims against state actors and evaluated whether the stated performance-based reasons for termination were pretextual.
This case is a copyright infringement action brought by U.S. affiliates of major South Korean television broadcasters against several Virginia video stores and their owners, alleging unauthorized rental and sale of Korean-language TV programs after termination of prior license agreements. The defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's April 8, 2011 summary judgment ruling that the plaintiffs had adequately established ownership of the works at issue and thus had standing to sue. The court denied the motion, finding no basis to alter its prior holding because the plaintiffs provided sufficient proof of ownership through U.S. copyright registrations and other evidence, despite arguments that Korean law or work-for-hire status should control. A bench trial remains scheduled on issues including willfulness, damages, and breach of contract claims.
The case involved a consumer suing a debt collection company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a dunning letter that offered settlement discounts tied to tax season savings without warning about possible tax consequences of debt forgiveness. The plaintiff sought damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction, claiming the omission violated FDCPA provisions against deceptive or unfair collection practices. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that the statute imposes no affirmative duty to disclose tax information and that requiring such advice would amount to the unauthorized practice of law.
This case involved a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act by the Shipbuilders Council of America and shipping companies to the U.S. Coast Guard's decision to grant a coastwise endorsement to the oil tanker Seabulk Trader following modifications performed in a foreign shipyard. The modifications included converting cargo tanks to segregated ballast tanks to comply with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990's double-hull and ballast requirements. Plaintiffs argued that the foreign work constituted a prohibited "rebuild" or "installation" under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) and 46 U.S.C. § 3704, which would disqualify the vessel from domestic trade. The court upheld the Coast Guard's determination that the specific piping, valve, and tank conversion work did not qualify as a foreign installation of required segregated ballast tanks or exceed the regulatory thresholds for rebuilding, finding it consistent with the applicable statutes and regulations. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions.