The case was an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision granting creditors an extension of time to object to both the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 and the dischargeability of specific debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523. The debtor, who had filed for Chapter 7 protection, argued that the creditors' motion only referenced discharge (not dischargeability), that they had enough information by the original August 5, 1991 deadline, and that the extension was unwarranted. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy judge's ruling, finding that the creditors established cause due to the debtor's incomplete production of records and that the debtor suffered no prejudice from the motion's wording, making the extension applicable to both discharge and dischargeability issues.
This case concerns a dispute over pension death benefits under the New Orleans Electrical Pension Plan governed by ERISA and the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, pitting the deceased participant's estate against his surviving spouse. The spouse had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the participant's death and had been declared an unworthy heir by a state probate court, with benefits directed to the estate. The court ruled in favor of the estate, holding that the spouse was not entitled to the qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity despite ERISA's spousal protections. The reasoning centered on the interplay between federal pension rules, state succession law disqualifying the spouse for her crime, the lack of evidence that the participant would have elected coverage, and ERISA provisions allowing waiver or non-application of spousal consent in cases of legal separation or abandonment.
This case involves the FDIC, as successor to the FSLIC receiver for an insolvent savings bank, suing the bank's former auditors and their insurer on claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence arising from audits performed from 1981 to 1985. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that all claims had prescribed. The court denied the motions, holding that the contract and fiduciary-duty allegations merely restated standard professional duties of care and therefore sounded in tort, subject to the shorter prescriptive period, but that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to when the bank knew or should have known of the alleged malpractice, precluding summary judgment on timeliness.
The case involved Mortgage Market, Inc. (MMI), which purchased a $250,000 certificate of deposit from Bankers Trust, a national bank that was later declared insolvent by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, with the FDIC appointed as receiver and paying only the insured $100,000 portion. MMI sued former outside directors Hardesty, et al., along with the FDIC, alleging a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of a Louisiana statute (La.Rev.Stat. § 6:419) that barred bank officers from accepting uninsured deposits after learning of insolvency. The court granted the directors' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It held that federal law preempts the state statute and related fiduciary claims because they intrude on the OCC's exclusive authority over national bank insolvency and operations. The court also found that the directors owed no duty to depositors under Louisiana law absent a specific agreement.
This case involved a dispute over whether the beneficiary of an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy could recover $150,000 after the insured died from autoerotic asphyxiation at his home. The insurer denied the claim, citing policy language that limited coverage to accidental bodily injury independent of other causes and excluded losses from intentionally self-inflicted injury. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied the beneficiary's motion. It reasoned that even assuming the death was accidental, the insured's intentional act of restricting oxygen to his brain via the elaborate pulley system qualified as an intentionally self-inflicted injury that directly led to the loss, making the exclusion applicable and barring recovery.
This case involves a civil lawsuit by vessel owners Lan Huong Thi Nguyen and Tricia Vu seeking damages after U.S. Coast Guard officers seized two commercial fishing boats in Louisiana upon discovering small amounts of marijuana aboard, leading to administrative fines and the vessels' return. The plaintiffs alleged improper seizures and damage to the vessels, despite having signed hold harmless agreements and condition forms. The court granted in part the motion to dismiss by federal defendants, dismissing claims against several high-level officials including Meese, Thornburgh, Von Raab, Elkins, and Fox for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana, while denying dismissal as to other federal officers and rejecting the motion by local sheriff defendants. Core reasoning centered on due process requirements for personal jurisdiction over non-resident officials, the inapplicability of nationwide service statutes to individual-capacity suits, and the need to evaluate qualified immunity and FTCA exceptions for remaining claims.
