District Court, D. Oregon — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Boyce v. United States Trustee (In Re Boyce)
District Court, D. Oregon · 2011-01-28 · cited 3×
In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor Doug Boyce challenged the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his Chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(A) for bad faith and under § 707(b)(3)(B) based on the totality of the circumstances. The district court affirmed, finding that Boyce had materially understated his income by omitting profit-sharing payments and rental income, failed to disclose student loan liabilities, and made unnecessary post-filing purchases financed by 401(k) loans. The court held that these misstatements, combined with Boyce's demonstrated ability to repay approximately $778 per month to creditors, supported dismissal on either ground independently. Review was for abuse of discretion on the dismissal decision and clear error on factual findings, with legal issues addressed de novo.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
OLENEC v. National Marine Fisheries Service
District Court, D. Oregon · 2011-01-28
This case involves plaintiffs, including individuals and environmental groups, challenging federal permits issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Oregon Resources Corporation for chromite mining operations in Coos County, Oregon, under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act; the plaintiffs alleged that the mines would harm wetlands, streams, threatened Oregon Coast Coho salmon, and local water quality due to hexavalent chromium and sedimentation. They moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop mining operations scheduled to begin in February 2011. The court denied the motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The agencies' decisions were supported by data indicating no significant formation of hexavalent chromium, adequate mitigation for sedimentation and other impacts, and evaluation of cumulative effects, while the balance of hardships did not favor the plaintiffs given the mining company's reliance on earlier approvals.
environmentbusiness & regulatory
Rowe v. Educational Credit Management Corp.
District Court, D. Oregon · 2010-08-10 · cited 6×
This case involved plaintiff Jeffrey Rowe's claims against defendant Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act, and conversion arising from collection efforts on a defaulted student loan. The district court initially dismissed the FDCPA claim, finding ECMC exempt from the statute's definition of debt collector due to its fiduciary relationship with the Department of Education, then declined jurisdiction over the state claims; after the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, the court granted summary judgment to ECMC on remand. The court reasoned that ECMC had assumed all guaranty agency responsibilities and obligations for Oregon loans from another entity, making its collection activities incidental to its bona fide fiduciary duties under the Higher Education Act rather than its principal purpose, and that it also acted as the loan holder itself. The action was dismissed in full.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Michael v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, D. Oregon · 2010-01-26
This case involves judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of a plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The plaintiff, born in 1957 with past work as a tax preparer, alleged disability due to back, neck, and hand pain, epilepsy, and depression; an ALJ found at step four that she could perform past relevant work and was not disabled. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation after de novo review, determining that the ALJ's credibility analysis of the plaintiff's testimony was inadequate and that new evidence such as an MRI report should be considered. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the ALJ to reevaluate the evidence and complete a new five-step sequential evaluation.
federal powerhealthcareprocedure
Miller v. Deschutes Valley Water District
District Court, D. Oregon · 2009-10-01 · cited 2×
In this case, plaintiff Bruce Miller, a longtime employee at the Opal Springs hydroelectric plant operated by defendant Deschutes Valley Water District, alleged that his supervisor Gary Lytle retaliated against him after Miller reported multiple safety violations and concerns starting in August 2006; the alleged retaliation included reprimands, schedule changes, loss of duties and privileges, administrative leave, and eventual termination in July 2007. Miller brought claims including age discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge in retaliation for safety complaints, and aiding and abetting. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the age discrimination, emotional distress, and aiding and abetting claims due to insufficient evidence of egregious conduct or a need for separate claims against the employer, but denied it as to the wrongful discharge claim because a reasonable factfinder could conclude the termination resulted from the safety complaints despite the time gap. The state-law claims were analyzed similarly to federal standards, and the court dismissed the individual claim against Lytle under state immunity provisions.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Stewart v. US Ex Rel. Dept. of Agriculture
District Court, D. Oregon · 2009-07-13 · cited 1×
The case concerned a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to a U.S. Forest Service decision (Forest Plan Amendment #47) that restricted motorized boat use on Waldo Lake to electric motors only and prohibited floatplane landings, with plaintiff arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction because the lake was navigable at Oregon's statehood in 1859 and thus owned by the state rather than the federal government. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review and partially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the APA claim, ruling that the Forest Service's reliance on an irrebuttable presumption of non-navigability was arbitrary and insufficient to establish jurisdiction, while denying the request for a judicial declaration that Oregon holds title to the lake. It granted in part the government's cross-motion, holding that ownership disputes over submerged lands are properly resolved only through a Quiet Title Act action rather than this APA proceeding. All other claims were dismissed as abandoned. The core reasoning focused on the narrow APA standard of review, the requirements for establishing navigability at statehood, and the procedural limits on adjudicating title without a proper quiet title suit.
environmentfederal powerproperty