This case concerned a motion by insurer Executive Risk to withdraw the reference of its declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a directors and officers policy from bankruptcy court to district court. The underlying dispute arose after the bankruptcy trustee for Jackson Brook Institute obtained a settlement judgment against insured Gary Brooks and assigned his indemnity claims to the estate. The district court denied the motion, holding that the action was at most non-core but related to the bankruptcy case because its outcome could affect the estate, and that no cause for withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) had been shown because the proceeding did not require substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy federal statutes or implicate a jury trial right. The court emphasized that withdrawal is an exception to the general rule referring bankruptcy matters to the bankruptcy court.
The case concerns Enrique Reyes-Cabrera's fourth post-conviction filing challenging his 1999 federal drug conviction and sentence on grounds including lack of enhancement notice, incorrect drug quantity calculation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the motion seeking a writ of coram nobis or Rule 35 sentence correction or reduction. It recharacterized the filing as a successive § 2255 petition that raised claims already rejected on the merits or that principally attacked the underlying conviction, for which the petitioner had not obtained required appellate authorization under AEDPA; the motion was also untimely under Rule 35 and ineligible for coram nobis relief because the petitioner remained in custody.
This ERISA case involved plaintiff Julie Collins's claim against MetLife and her employer for short-term disability benefits under a company health plan, alleging wrongful denial due to her fibromyalgia and depression preventing her from working as a buyer. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record, upholding the denial of benefits. The plan granted MetLife discretionary authority to interpret terms and determine eligibility, so the court reviewed the decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard. After reviewing the administrative record, including medical notes showing ongoing conditions but insufficient evidence of inability to perform her occupation, the court found no error in MetLife's conclusion that Collins was not disabled under the plan's definition.
The case involved Abdul Azimi, a Muslim immigrant from Afghanistan, who sued his former employer, Jordan’s Meats, Inc., alleging racial, religious, or ethnic harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. After a jury trial found that the defendant had violated these statutes, Azimi received only declaratory relief stating that the violations occurred, with no compensatory damages, nominal damages, reinstatement, or other equitable relief awarded. The court denied Azimi’s motion for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, holding that he was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the declaratory judgment alone did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties or affect the defendant’s behavior toward the plaintiff in a way that provided enforceable relief. The decision relied on precedents requiring some relief on the merits that directly benefits the plaintiff for prevailing-party status, distinguishing cases where injunctions or other concrete outcomes accompanied declarations.
The case involves the United States Government seeking foreclosure on real estate mortgages securing loans made to Scottie L. Curtis and Julie M. Curtis in 1986 and 1987, which were later reamortized. After Scottie Curtis's death, Julie M. Curtis defaulted on payments of principal, interest, and taxes, prompting the government to pay taxes to protect its interest. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against parties-in-interest Maine State Housing Authority, Penobscot Bay Medical Center, and Harpster Receivables Management Corporation, establishing the priority of the government's liens over those subordinate recorded liens. The decision rests on the entry of default against the defendant, which establishes the facts of default and entitlement to foreclosure, combined with the lack of any disputed material facts regarding lien priority in the summary judgment record. The court ordered the plaintiff to file a proposed Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale within thirty days after attempting to agree on lien priorities and amounts with the parties-in-interest.
The case concerns a class action settlement over strip search practices at the Knox County Jail. The court approved the Third Final Settlement Agreement and issued a permanent injunction barring strip searches of individuals charged with crimes not involving weapons, violence, or controlled substances during the booking process unless officers have reasonable suspicion of contraband. The order requires jail officials to maintain a public log documenting each search, including the basis for reasonable suspicion, and retains court jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under the All Writs Act. The injunction is designed to align with Fourth Amendment requirements, with provisions for future modification if controlling case law changes.
