The case involved an appeal by debtors Thaine and Lisa Mahanna from a bankruptcy court's order dismissing their Chapter 11 case without prejudice after they converted from Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court cited multiple failures by the debtors to meet their obligations, such as paying fees, providing accurate information, attending meetings, and maintaining proper accounts, along with the lack of assets and the case's stalled progress. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the debtors had not shown an absolute right to convert to Chapter 7 when a dismissal motion was pending, that their due process claims lacked merit, and that the order was final despite arguments based on Stern v. Marshall. The court also imposed sanctions on the debtors and their counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal motivated in part by avoiding filing fees.
This case is a foreclosure dispute in which plaintiff Kan, after defaulting on Texas properties, recorded documents purporting to reduce the secured debt to zero, substitute trustees, and reconvey the property, then sued defendant OneWest Bank challenging its authority to foreclose under a "show-me-the-note" theory and related claims. OneWest moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the complaint's conclusory allegations failed to satisfy Rule 8's notice requirements or the plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal, and that Kan's legal theories lacked support in Texas law.
This case involved a dispute between Dell Marketing, LP and Incompass IT, Inc. over an alleged unpaid debt of approximately $75,000 for Dell products purchased by Incompass as a reseller. Dell filed suit in Texas state court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, which Incompass removed to federal court on diversity grounds while asserting lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense and filing counterclaims. After reviewing motions and supplemental briefing, the court found that Incompass lacked minimum contacts with Texas sufficient to satisfy due process for personal jurisdiction, noting that the contract's arbitration clause was illusory and Incompass had no other purposeful ties to the forum. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied all other pending motions as moot.
This case is a consolidated securities class action brought by lead plaintiff DeKalb County Pension Fund on behalf of purchasers of ArthroCare Corporation stock during the class period, alleging that the company, certain executives, and its auditor PriceWaterhouseCoopers made materially false and misleading public statements about the company's insurance billing practices through its DiscoCare subsidiary and about its accounting and internal controls. The plaintiff claims these statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, with additional control-person liability claims under Section 20(a). The court considered multiple motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. The court denied the motions in substantial part, finding that the complaint adequately alleged the existence of material misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation when the facts are taken as true, while noting that control-person claims are derivative of the primary violations and that secondary actors cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting under the statute.
This case was a trademark infringement suit in which Honestech alleged that Sonic Solutions (Roxio) infringed its claimed mark "VHS TO DVD" by using a similar title for competing analog-to-digital conversion software. After a jury trial, the jury found the mark descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, resulting in a verdict for Roxio on all claims. Honestech moved for a new trial, arguing the court improperly admitted expert survey testimony on secondary meaning, but the court denied the motion, finding the challenges were previously rejected and any error was not prejudicial. The court also resolved post-trial matters by granting Roxio's bill of costs in part while denying Honestech recovery of certain discovery expenses tied to an unpled genericness defense.
The case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin concerned two Caucasian applicants denied admission who challenged the university's undergraduate admissions policy as discriminating on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and federal civil rights statutes. On cross-motions for summary judgment in the liability phase, the district court upheld the policy. The court reasoned that the policy was constitutional under Grutter v. Bollinger because it served the compelling interest of student body diversity through a narrowly tailored, holistic review process in which race was one individualized factor among many, and race-neutral alternatives such as the Top Ten Percent Law had not produced sufficient diversity. The opinion reviewed the history of UT's admissions practices, including the Top Ten Percent Law and personal achievement index, and found that consideration of race remained necessary and limited.
