Case Summaries
Banking Law
Commercial Law
Uniform Commercial Code
Banking Law
[09/04]
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.
[08/26]
Mamot Feed Lot & Trucking v. Hobson
In a class action raising federal usury and antitying claims against a bank, its holding company, and various shareholders, officers, and employees of the bank, following the criminal indictment of the bank's president for defrauding the bank of nearly one million dollars, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) as sections 85 and 86 do not apply to state-chartered banks, the district court properly dismissed those claims brought under the National Bank Act for want of jurisdiction; 2) the district court properly dismissed a claim under 12 U.S.C. section 1831d for failure to state a claim; and 3) the complaint provided absolutely no facts to support an illegal tying claim.
[08/26]
JCB, Inc. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A.
In an action against defendant-bank seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for trespass and conversion for unilateral removal and sale of equipment which had been purchased by their debtor-defendant and was subject to their competing security interests, partial summary judgment and awards for plaintiff are affirmed in all respects except for a punitive damage award for trespass which must be remitted to $108,750 on due process grounds.
[08/22]
Lucas v. PyraMax Bank, FSB
In a suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and ERISA alleging illegal demotion, termination, and retaliation, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff could not make out a Title VII gender-discrimination claim because she produced no evidence that she met her employer's legitimate job expectations, or that a similarly-situated male employee received better treatment; 2) no evidence supported plaintiff's claim that she was terminated as a result of filing a state gender-discrimination claim; 3) plaintiff's FMLA claim did not demonstrate that she was fired for taking medical leave rather than for poor job performance; and 4) there was no evidence that defendant had the specific intent to violate ERISA and interfere with plaintiff's ERISA rights.
More...
Commercial Law
[09/05]
Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.
[09/04]
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.
[09/03]
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn v. Landstar Sys.
In a class action lawsuit brought against defendant motor carrier alleging that freight hauling leases violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations for failing to disclose that banking fee charges would be deducted from compensation paid to the truck owners and drivers, partial summary judgment and award of damages in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred in finding that defendant was not required to disclose banking fee charge and document charge-back items; 2) district court erred in granting an injunction sealing the pricing information provided to defendant company; 3) district court correctly ruled that section 276.12(h) requires defendant to provide documentation related to charge-back items but erred in concluding that defendant met the requirement; and 4)district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class for actual damages.
[08/29]
Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
In a suit over a commercial contract, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) courts must examine the contract itself and the totality of the surrounding circumstances when determining if a waiver-of-reliance provision is binding; and 2) an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision precludes a fraudulent-inducement claim as a matter of law.
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.
[05/26]
PROPULSION TECHS. v. ATWOOD CORP.
An agreement to manufacture boat parts is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, thus the claim for fraud in the inducement cannot survive.
[04/12]
CHATSKY & ASSOCS. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BANK OF AM. CORP.)
The one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c), rather than the three-year limitations period of California Uniform Commercial Code section 4111, applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors' accounts.
[01/22]
HICKS v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (KAUFMAN & BROAD HOME CORP.)
If set forth in conspicuous and understandable language, a disclaimer of the implied warranty of quality is enforceable. The trial court correctly concluded that written disclaimers in the sales and express warranty documents provided to the home buyers preclude their claim for breach of implied warranty.
More...
|
