Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Sears, as a debtor in possession, exercised its rights under 11 U.S.C. 363(b)(1) and sold most of its assets to Transform, including the right to designate to whom a lease should be assigned. Section 365 prohibits the assignment of an unexpired lease without “adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee,” and establishes special criteria related to “shopping center[s],” Transform designated the Mall of America lease for assignment. The landlord, MOAC, objected, arguing that Sears had failed to provide adequate assurance. The Bankruptcy Court approved the assignment.Section 363(m) states that the reversal or modification on appeal of a 363(b) authorization of a sale or lease does not affect the validity of a sale or lease to an entity that purchased or leased the property in good faith, even if the entity knew of the pendency of the appeal unless the court entered a stay pending appeal. The Bankruptcy Court denied MOAC’s request for a stay. Sears assigned the lease. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, treating 363(m) as jurisdictional.The Supreme Court vacated. Section 363(m) is not jurisdictional and is not, therefore, impervious to excuses like waiver or forfeiture. The Court noted the consequences of deeming the section jurisdictional–even egregious conduct by a litigant could permit the application of judicial estoppel against a jurisdictional rule. Courts should only treat a provision as jurisdictional if Congress “clearly states” as much. Nothing in 363(m) purports to govern a court’s adjudicatory capacity; it plainly contemplates that appellate courts might reverse or modify any covered authorization, with a limitation on the consequences. Congress separated 363(m) from jurisdictional provisions. The Court rejected Transform’s argument that the transfer to a good-faith purchaser removes the property from the bankruptcy estate, and so from the court’s in rem jurisdiction. View "MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC" on Justia Law

SR Construction held a lien on real property owned by RE Palm Springs II. The property owner is a corporate affiliate of Hall Palm Springs LLC, who had financed the original undertaking for a separate real estate developer. The latter requested leave of the bankruptcy court to submit a credit bid to purchase the property from its affiliate, which the bankruptcy court granted. The bankruptcy court later approved the sale and discharged all liens. The construction company appealed the bankruptcy court’s credit-bid and sale orders. Finding that the lender was a good faith purchaser, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court and dismissed the appeal as moot under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the pandemic dramatically changed not only the lender’s plans for the Property but it also severely impacted the affiliate’s ability to market and sell a hotel, particularly an unfinished one. In sum, these two factors must also be weighed in considering whether any of the actions or procedures, particularly with regard to pricing or timing issues, were performed in bad faith or as a result of sub-optimal external forces beyond the lender’s control. The court explained that the record facts, framed by the external context and circumstances, make plain that there is no error in the judgments of the able bankruptcy and district courts. Accordingly, the court held that the lender did not engage in fraud and was a “good faith purchaser.” View "SR Construction v. Hall Palm Springs" on Justia Law

SE Property Holdings, LLC (“SEPH”) obtained a deficiency judgment against Neverve LLC (“Neverve”) after Neverve defaulted on loans secured by a mortgage on its property. Following this judgment, Neverve received the proceeds from an unrelated settlement. But Neverve transferred those proceeds to attorneys representing Neverve’s principal in payment of attorney’s fees relating to the principal’s personal bankruptcy proceedings. SEPH then sued Neverve based on Neverve’s allegedly fraudulent transfer of those settlement proceeds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Neverve, finding that the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (“FUFTA”) “catch-all” provision did not allow for (1) an award of money damages against the transferor, (2) punitive damages, or (3) attorney’s fees. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Neverve on SEPH’s equitable lien claim, as Neverve no longer possessed the settlement proceeds at issue.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that based on the narrow interpretation of FUFTA in Freeman v. First Union National Bank, 865 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2004), the court believes the Florida Supreme Court would determine that FUFTA’s catch-all provision does not allow for an award of money damages against the transferor, an award of punitive damages, or an award of attorney’s fees. Thus, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Neverve on SEPH’s FUFTA claims. And the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Neverve on SEPH’s equitable lien claim. View "SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Neverve LLC" on Justia Law

Attorney and his law firm, Pesner Kawamato Conway, P.C. (collectively, Conway), appealed the district court’s order rejecting the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation to enjoin Smith Development, Inc.’s legal malpractice suit against Conway and to impose sanctions for violating the Barton doctrine and the automatic stay.   The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the district court’s decision rests on the abstention principles. The court explained that Conway suggests the district court had no authority to enter an abstention order because, under Barton, the district court itself lacked jurisdiction over Smith Development’s malpractice claims. However, the court wrote that this argument fares no better than the first. Barton concerns subject-matter jurisdiction over a separate action, not jurisdiction over the proceedings in which a party seeks Barton protection in the first place. And even if the court accepted the argument’s doubtful premise, it fails on its own logic because the bankruptcy court issued a report and recommendation to the district court, thereby authorizing the district court to rule on the matter. Further, the court found that even if it recognized a narrow exception to Section 1334(d)’s clear jurisdictional bar, the district court’s order would not fall within it. View "Martin Conway v. Smith Development, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's complaint stemming from the suspension of his hospital clinical privileges and medical staff membership under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner, a self-employed physician, held clinical privileges and medical staff membership with Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Association and Thomas Health System, Inc. (collectively, Thomas Hospital) until they were suspended in 2019. Petitioner brought this action raising claims related to the suspension. The suspension, however, occurred before Thomas Hospital's Chapter 11 bankruptcy confirmation order and reorganization plan. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint. View "Katrib v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Ass'n" on Justia Law

Peraica represented Dordevic in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and submitted a Statement of Financial Affairs (Rule 2016 disclosure) in which he reported that Dordevic had paid him $5,000. As the Trustee learned during discovery, Dordevic had actually paid Peraica $21,500. The Trustee informed Peraica that he needed to file an updated Rule 2016 fee disclosure. Peraica instead sent the Trustee an informal accounting document listing $21,500 in fees. The Trustee responded: “The Rule 2016 disclosures actually need to be filed with the Court” by submitting “an official form.” Peraica repeatedly ignored the Trustee’s reminders. The Trustee filed a motion, 11 U.S.C. 329, to examine the fees. Peraica failed to respond; the Trustee then requested that all fees be forfeited. The bankruptcy court granted the motion.The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. Beyond Peraica’s brazen disregard of the Trustee’s advice, Peraica’s proffered explanation for not updating his fee disclosure lacking, if not false. Peraica had been involved in more than 350 bankruptcy cases in the Northern District of Illinois alone. The bankruptcy court ordered Peraica to disgorge all past fees as a penalty for his blatant lack of compliance with his obligations. There is no leeway for partial or incomplete disclosure. View "Peraica v. Layng" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs commenced this adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida against UBS Financial Services Inc. and UBS Credit Corp. (together, “UBS”), to recover funds UBS had frozen in one of its accounts to satisfy debts owed by Plaintiffs. After the bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all of the claims but one – Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim -- UBS appealed to the district court, which affirmed. UBS appealed to the Eleventh Circuit urging it to apply a more “flexible” interpretation of finality in the bankruptcy arena.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court wrote it is bound to dismiss this appeal because the same concepts of finality apply in appeals taken from adversary proceedings as in appeals taken from standard civil actions. The bankruptcy court left Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim open and awaiting trial, so we cannot assert jurisdiction based on the finality of the bankruptcy court’s order. Further, the court wrote, it cannot find that any of the three recognized exceptions to the final judgment rule -- the collateral order doctrine, the practical finality doctrine, or the marginal finality doctrine -- allows the court to reach the merits of UBS’s appeal. While, under the doctrine of cumulative finality, the subsequent entry of final judgment may cure a premature notice of appeal, the parties’ effort to finally resolve the underlying proceeding, in this case, falls flat. View "Lorenzo Esteva, et al v. UBS Financial Services Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Colorado Bankers is a life, accident, and health insurance company. Colorado Bankers made several interrelated agreements with Academy Financial Assets (Academy). After Academy failed to pay the still outstanding balance in full by the June 30 maturity date, Colorado Bankers filed an amended complaint adding a second breach of contract claim. At issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company in its suit against Academy Financial Assets for violating a loan agreement? Second, did the district court err in concluding a North Carolina statute requires Academy to pay 15% of the outstanding loan balance as attorneys’ fees?   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court acknowledged various federal district and bankruptcy courts have adopted this view, we decline to do so. The court wrote that while perhaps appealing as a policy matter, Academy’s argument has scant basis in the statutory text, and Academy has identified no compelling reason for concluding the Supreme Court of North Carolina would interpret the statute in such an atextual manner. The court thus held the district court did not err in following the plain language of the statute and imposing a 15% fee award without requiring evidence of “the attorney’s actual billings or usual rates.” View "Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Academy Financial Assets, LLC" on Justia Law

This bankruptcy appeal involves a primary insurer’s attempts to block its insureds’ Chapter 11 reorganization plan (the “Plan”), which establishes a trust under 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g) for current and future asbestos personal-injury liabilities. In adopting the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to confirm the Plan, the district court concluded in relevant part that the primary insurer was not a “party in interest” under 11 U.S.C. Section 1109(b) and thus lacked standing to object to the Plan.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, but on both Section 1109(b) grounds and Article III grounds. The court explained that as an insurer, Plaintiff fails to show that the Plan impairs its contractual rights or otherwise expands its potential liability under the subject insurance policies, so it is not a party in interest under Section 1109(b) with standing to challenge the Plan in that capacity. Similarly, as a creditor, Plaintiff objects to parts of the Plan that implicate only the rights of third parties, which fails to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Accordingly, none of Plaintiff’s objections to the Plan can survive. View "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc." on Justia Law

ResCap Liquidating Trust (“ResCap”) pursued indemnification claims against originator Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. (“PRMI”), a Nevada corporation. ResCap asserted breach of contract and indemnification claims, seeking to recover a portion of the allowed bankruptcy claims for those holding units in the liquidating trust. The district court concluded that ResCap had established each element of its contractual indemnification claim. The district court awarded ResCap $10.6 million in attorney’s fees, $3.5 million in costs, $2 million in prejudgment interest, and $520,212 in what it termed “post-award prejudgment interest” for the period between entry of judgment and the order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Defendant appealed.   The Eighth Circuit remanded for a recalculation of postjudgment interest but otherwise affirmed. The court explained that the district court held that, as a matter of Minnesota law governed by Section 549.09, a final judgment was not “finally entered” until its Judgment in a Civil Case resolving attorney’s fees, costs, and interest was entered on April 28, 2021, and therefore Minnesota’s ten percent prejudgment rate applied in the interim period. But Section 1961(a) does not say “final judgment,” it says “money judgment.” The district court, on August 17, 2020, entered a “money judgment.” Thus, the district court erred in applying Minnesota law to calculate interest after August 17, 2020, rather than 28 U.S.C. Section 1961(a). View "ResCap Liquidating Trust v. Primary Residential Mortgage" on Justia Law