The case concerned whether funds in an Inherited Individual Retirement Account qualify for exemption from a bankruptcy estate under the federal provision of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C). The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of the exemption claimed by the debtors. The court reasoned that the Inherited IRA satisfied both requirements for exemption because the funds remained retirement funds held in an account exempt from taxation under IRC § 408, with principal and earnings tax-deferred until distributed, and the statute's language supported including such accounts. The decision noted that any ambiguity in the exemption statute should be resolved in favor of the debtor.
This case involved the United States filing a collateral attack in federal court against a Wisconsin state rehabilitation court, seeking to enjoin enforcement of orders in an Ambac Assurance Corporation insurance rehabilitation proceeding that restricted IRS tax collection actions. The court decided to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without addressing the request for a preliminary injunction. The core reasoning was that principles of comity and federalism under Burford abstention, along with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, barred federal jurisdiction, as the United States could challenge the orders in the state proceeding or on appeal, consistent with the court's prior remand of a related removal action.
This ERISA case involved plaintiff Deborah Kenseth, who underwent surgery to remove gastric bands after receiving assurances of coverage from defendant Dean Health Plan's customer service, only to have the claim denied under an obesity-related exclusion. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, which had revived her breach of fiduciary duty claim, the district court addressed whether she sought authorized equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that her requests for monetary relief were compensatory damages unavailable under the statute, her demands for policy changes were not justiciable because she was no longer a plan participant, and she was not entitled to attorney fees under § 1132(g)(1) due to lack of success on the claim and the defendant's substantially justified position.
This case involved the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance's petition in state court to rehabilitate a segregated account of Ambac Assurance Corporation under Wisconsin insurance statutes, after which the United States removed the matter to federal court and moved to dissolve a state-court injunction affecting its potential tax claims. The district court granted the Commissioner's motion to remand the proceeding to the Circuit Court for Dane County. It held that removal was improper because the McCarran-Ferguson Act leaves regulation of the insurance business to the states and thereby preempts federal removal jurisdiction here. The court further concluded that abstention was required under the principles of Burford v. Sun Oil Co. to respect comity and federalism, given the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for insurance-company rehabilitations and the state court's superior familiarity with the issues. Because removal was improper, the court lacked jurisdiction to address the United States' motion to dissolve the injunction.
This case is a proposed class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which Wilder Chiropractic alleged that Pizza Hut sent unsolicited fax advertisements to it and over 3,000 others. Defendant made a Rule 68 offer of judgment paying the maximum on plaintiff's individual claim plus costs, fees, and an injunction, which plaintiff rejected. Plaintiff moved to strike the offer or certify the class, while defendant moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The court held that the case is not moot if plaintiff can show class certification is appropriate under Rule 23, denied the motion to strike, and stayed the other motions pending supplemental briefing on ascertainability, scope of the class, consent issues, and adequacy of counsel.
This case concerned whether utility companies could claim administrative priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) for electricity supplied to a debtor in the 20 days before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The debtor, GFI Wisconsin, Inc., objected that electricity does not qualify as a "good" under the statute, which incorporates the Uniform Commercial Code definition requiring movability and identifiability at the time of sale, and that any bundled services should be excluded. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, and the district court affirmed, holding that electricity satisfies the definition of goods because it is identifiable and moving when metered at the customer's premises. The court also found that arguments about predominant purpose tests or unbundling services were waived because they were not raised in the initial briefing and the parties had stipulated to the claim amounts.