This case involved multiple motions in a dispute over the United States' attempts to enforce tax liens on properties allegedly fraudulently conveyed by taxpayers to third parties or held by nominees, along with related cross-claims by another party. The court denied the motion for reconsideration of its prior dismissal of one count against the United States, as well as all motions to dismiss the United States' complaint and the cross-claims. The core reasoning was that the reconsideration motion merely restated prior arguments without showing overlooked dispositive facts or law, and the complaints met the liberal notice pleading standards under Rule 8(a) such that no clear grounds for dismissal existed on the face of the pleadings regarding statutes of limitations, jurisdiction, or other defenses.
This case involves an appeal from bankruptcy court orders in a Chapter 7 proceeding filed by debtor Bernea Smith, who failed to disclose a pending personal injury claim against Allstate Insurance in her petition. After the petition, her counsel Friedman and Associates settled the claim without trustee approval or disclosure, leading the trustee to void the settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and order disgorgement of the proceeds. The district court affirmed, holding that the post-petition settlement was void and that the firm lacked a valid retaining lien due to voluntary transfer of files or a statutory charging lien because it was unperfected and could not attach to a void settlement. The court rejected arguments based on the law of the case doctrine and recent state precedent, finding no basis to disturb the bankruptcy rulings. The appeal was denied.
The case involved a property owner who, after its real property was foreclosed upon by a township through an in rem tax foreclosure action for unpaid taxes, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sued to set aside the final foreclosure judgment as a fraudulent conveyance under state law or on equitable grounds. The district court granted the township's interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court's partial denial of a motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims could not proceed. The court reasoned that New Jersey statutes, including the Tax Sale Law and amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, expressly bar treating tax foreclosures as fraudulent conveyances, that an equity theory would improperly circumvent statutory limits and procedures for challenging such judgments, and that the reasoning of BFP v. Resolution Trust applies equally to tax foreclosures.
This case involved a challenge by Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey and several physicians to the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, which criminalized performing a "partial-birth abortion" defined as partially vaginally delivering a living fetus before killing it, with penalties including license revocation and fines, and applied throughout pregnancy without a health exception for the woman. The court decided to grant the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the Act unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement. The core reasoning was that the Act's vague definitions of key terms like "partial" and "substantial portion" combined with its lack of a maternal health exception imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion under the Casey standard, both pre- and post-viability, while chilling providers' ability to offer legal services.
Daniel Piccolo, incarcerated for possession of firearms as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), filed a habeas corpus petition seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) after completing a residential drug treatment program. The court denied the petition, upholding the Bureau of Prisons' determination that his offense did not qualify as nonviolent and thus was ineligible for the reduction. The court reasoned that the Bureau properly exercised its discretion by referencing the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) and its program statement categorizing felon-in-possession offenses as crimes of violence in all cases, consistent with Third Circuit precedent, and that the statute's language created no liberty interest in the reduction.
This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court's December 1995 order that used 11 U.S.C. § 105 to preliminarily enjoin the State of New Jersey and its Bureau of Securities from continuing a civil action against debtor Robert Brennan and non-debtors Austin Bernet, Inc. and Roger Barnett. The state action alleged securities fraud, obstruction, and racketeering arising from a prior $75 million SEC judgment against Brennan, who had filed for bankruptcy shortly afterward. The district court reversed the injunction and remanded, ruling that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion because the state proceeding qualified for the police-powers exception to the automatic stay and the debtor had not demonstrated irreparable harm. The court further held that extending the stay to non-debtors was likewise improper under the circumstances.