This case is an appeal from two orders in related Chapter XI bankruptcy proceedings involving Exten Associates, Inc. and the Exten individuals: one removing a trustee under a mortgage created by the confirmed plan of arrangement and substituting new representatives for unsecured creditors, and the other adjudicating the corporate debtor bankrupt. The district court affirmed the adjudication order, which was based on the debtors' default in making required annual interest payments to creditors under the modified plan and the bankruptcy court's retained jurisdiction to address such defaults. The court held that this affirmance rendered the trustee removal order moot, as the plan explicitly allowed conversion to straight bankruptcy upon nonperformance after confirmation.
In Bundy v. Cannon, three inmates at the Maryland Correctional Institution filed a pro se motion to intervene in a prior case, alleging that correctional officials were not complying with court-approved Adjustment Procedures for handling prison rule violations and that they were being denied due process. The parties, through appointed counsel, reached agreement on revised procedures that replaced the prior three-person Adjustment Team with a single hearing officer to address concerns about impartiality. The court approved the revised Adjustment Procedures, which include detailed pre-hearing, hearing, and post-hearing steps such as notice requirements, opportunities to present evidence and question witnesses, and appeal processes to the Warden. The court noted that the revisions comply with minimum due process requirements as established in prior decisions but made no finding that they are constitutionally mandated, and the inmates voluntarily dismissed their motion.
The case involved Crown Central Petroleum's termination of its franchise agreement with Day Enterprises, Inc., which operated one of Crown's retail gasoline stations, on the grounds that the company's principal, Richard Day, violated the agreement's 'substantial full time' provision by devoting significant time to other business interests instead of the station. Day Enterprises sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), seeking to enjoin the termination, a declaratory judgment that it violated the statute, and related relief, while Crown counterclaimed for a declaration that the termination was lawful and for possession of the station. The court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits and considered cross-motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts and limited testimony. It held that the termination complied with PMPA sections 2802(b)(2)(A) and (B) because the franchise provision was unambiguous, Day Enterprises had notice of and failed to meet the full-time requirement, and the other business activities constituted an event justifying nonrenewal without any improper waiver by Crown.
The case involved a cargo owner and insurer seeking to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel owned by Chile's government merchant marine for damages from a collision in international waters. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. The court denied the motion, holding that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(b) because the lien arose from the vessel's commercial activity of carrying cargo, the required notices to the vessel's possessor and the foreign state were timely given, and the legislative history confirmed that such admiralty claims against foreign states fall within the statutory exception to immunity.
This case involves a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Broadcast Music, Inc. against Dici Naz Velleggia, Inc., alleging unauthorized use of eleven copyrighted works and seeking statutory damages of $250 per claim along with injunctive relief. The defendant answered and requested a jury trial, prompting the plaintiff to move to strike that demand. The court analyzed whether the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in this statutory copyright action by applying tests from Supreme Court precedents, including whether the rights resemble common-law claims and whether the remedies are legal or equitable. It determined that the relief sought, limited to statutory damages, is essentially equitable in nature. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant's demand for a jury trial.
The case involved a former Army officer discharged after twice being passed over for promotion to Major, who sued the Secretary of the Army alleging violations of due process and equal protection because promotion boards met in secret without recorded deliberations or hearings and allegedly favored West Point graduates. After staying the case for review by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, which denied the claim, the court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court found the claim justiciable due to the constitutional allegations and exhaustion of remedies but determined after weighing the Mindes v. Seaman factors that review was not warranted given the high degree of interference with military functions, the expertise involved in promotions, and the lack of any fundamental right to promotion. It concluded there was no equal protection violation, as any distinction favoring West Point graduates satisfied rational basis review, and granted summary judgment to the defendant.
