This case is a district court appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Red Mountain Machinery Co., in which secured creditor Comerica Bank challenged three rulings: partial denial of its § 1111(b) election to treat its claim as fully secured, the adequacy of equity contributions by the owners under the new value exception, and the interest rate to be paid on its claim going forward. The court granted the motion to dismiss the § 1111(b) claim as untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and dismissed the new value claim as equitably moot because the plan had been substantially consummated without a stay, making effective relief impossible without disrupting third-party expectations and clawing back distributions. On the interest rate issue, the court applied de novo review to the legal standard but gave deference to factual findings, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly used the formula approach from Till v. SCS Credit Corp. and properly considered the relevant loan characteristics without error. The court therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court's interest rate determination.
The case involves a former Lowe's employee alleging she faced a hostile work environment due to repeated sexual conversations by managers and was terminated after applying for a transfer to escape it, resulting in claims including sex discrimination, retaliation, negligent misrepresentation, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, the court dismissed the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the negligent misrepresentation claim for lack of a duty or sufficient facts, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct was not extreme enough, while allowing the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to continue due to the employment relationship. The rulings applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards under Rule 12(c) and Arizona tort law principles regarding duties and outrageous conduct.
This case involves a dispute over alleged copyright infringement of four works created from 1993 video recordings of workshops on the Flower of Life meditation teachings, including books, illustrations, and video compilations. Plaintiff Drunvalo Melchizedek and related entities claim ownership and licensing rights to these works and allege that defendants, including former licensed facilitators Ronald Holt and others, continued unauthorized use after licenses ended. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding material factual disputes regarding access, copying, and the applicability of defenses such as abandonment of copyright and consent. The case was therefore set for trial rather than resolved on the papers.
This case concerns allegations by B2B CFO Partners and Jerry Mills that former partner Kenneth Kaufman and his new CFO business infringed the copyright in their 2005 training manual by creating and distributing similar manuals in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on copyright infringement and an injunction, while defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment to bar statutory damages and attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act. The court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' motion, holding that any infringement began with the pre-registration distribution of the 2008 manual and that later distributions did not commence a new and separate infringement. The ruling rested on Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting 17 U.S.C. § 412, which limits remedies when infringement starts before copyright registration.
This multidistrict litigation consolidated several class actions against mortgage companies, banks, trustees, and MERS entities alleging fraud and related claims arising from mortgage origination, servicing, and foreclosure practices in Arizona, Nevada, and California. The court addressed dozens of motions to dismiss the complaints, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the elements of fraud under the respective state laws, which require a false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages. Finding the allegations deficient, the court dismissed the complaints without prejudice for failure to state a claim and directed the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint in a single action while denying other theories without prejudice.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by MMI, Inc. against several defendants, including Baja, Inc. and Rural King Holding Company, regarding the design of a motorized mini bike protected by U.S. Patent No. D591,203S. The court granted Baja's motion to file a license agreement under seal, finding it contained trade secrets warranting protection under the good cause standard for non-dispositive filings. It also granted Rural King Holding's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as MMI failed to provide evidence linking the defendant to the forum or rebutting declarations denying jurisdiction, and denied additional discovery.
