This document summarizes a bankruptcy appellate panel decision regarding whether a debt arising from a copyright infringement judgment against Doug Walker was dischargeable. The bankruptcy court found the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury. Walker appealed. The appellate panel affirmed, finding that Walker willfully failed to obtain a required public performance license for his bar despite repeated attempts by ASCAP to contact him, and his actions in disregarding copyright law were malicious.
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document is a motion to dismiss claims brought by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee against a debtor. The trustee claimed the debtor's post-bankruptcy personal injury settlement was a pre-bankruptcy asset. However, the motion argues the debtor's injury and cause of action did not accrue until years after bankruptcy discharge, based on the state's definition of when a personal injury cause of action accrues. It asserts the trustee failed to plead fraud with particularity and the settlement was not an asset of the bankruptcy estate under state law since the injury occurred post-discharge. The motion seeks dismissal on the grounds that the trustee's claims lack merit and were improperly brought.
The bankruptcy court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the lower court. It affirmed the ruling that Wells Fargo did not have standing to file a proof of claim on behalf of Freddie Mac as it was not the servicer of the loan. However, it reversed the ruling that Wells Fargo lacked standing to file the claim as the principal and holder of the note and deed of trust. The bankruptcy court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the authenticity of the blank endorsement on the note, which was key to establishing if Wells Fargo had standing as the holder. After the hearing, the bankruptcy court ruled the blank endorsement was not genuine and disallowed Wells Fargo's proof of claim. Wells Fargo appealed this
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
49 u.s.c. § 46504 – interference with flight crewMichael Pariente
49 u.s.c. § 46504 – interference with flight crew is a federal crime and this is some information about how the law originated in different bits of case law involving diminished capacity and crimes of intent.
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document is a motion to dismiss claims brought by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee against a debtor. The trustee claimed the debtor's post-bankruptcy personal injury settlement was a pre-bankruptcy asset. However, the motion argues the debtor's injury and cause of action did not accrue until years after bankruptcy discharge, based on the state's definition of when a personal injury cause of action accrues. It asserts the trustee failed to plead fraud with particularity and the settlement was not an asset of the bankruptcy estate under state law since the injury occurred post-discharge. The motion seeks dismissal on the grounds that the trustee's claims lack merit and were improperly brought.
The bankruptcy court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the lower court. It affirmed the ruling that Wells Fargo did not have standing to file a proof of claim on behalf of Freddie Mac as it was not the servicer of the loan. However, it reversed the ruling that Wells Fargo lacked standing to file the claim as the principal and holder of the note and deed of trust. The bankruptcy court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the authenticity of the blank endorsement on the note, which was key to establishing if Wells Fargo had standing as the holder. After the hearing, the bankruptcy court ruled the blank endorsement was not genuine and disallowed Wells Fargo's proof of claim. Wells Fargo appealed this
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
49 u.s.c. § 46504 – interference with flight crewMichael Pariente
49 u.s.c. § 46504 – interference with flight crew is a federal crime and this is some information about how the law originated in different bits of case law involving diminished capacity and crimes of intent.
This document summarizes a court case between First American Title Insurance Company, Winnebago County Title Company, and TCF Bank regarding a mortgage on a property owned by Patricia Bartholomew. TCF Bank held the first mortgage on the property as a revolving line of credit. Winnebago acted as an agent in a second mortgage taken out by Bartholomew. Winnebago paid off the TCF Bank mortgage but TCF did not release its lien. Bartholomew then took out more funds through the revolving credit and defaulted. The court found that TCF Bank was not legally required to release the lien until the revolving credit was cancelled by Bartholomew. However
This document is Defendant's brief in support of a motion for summary disposition in a case regarding a car accident. It argues that summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116 (C)(10) and (C)(8) because Plaintiff cannot establish specific facts to support their claim or a valid legal basis for the claim. It also argues that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Defendant's liability under the Michigan No-Fault Act. The brief provides background on the standards for summary disposition and reviews the purpose and relevant sections of the Michigan No-Fault Act regarding insurance requirements.
John J. Pankauski is a partner with Pankauski Hauser PLLC in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Pankauski has spent over 20 years of his career handling matters involving wills, trusts, estates, probates, and guardianships. His practice is limited to disputes, trials and appeals of such matters. He is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubel.
1. John Bernard filed a lawsuit against Mount Oakland Ski Resort for injuries sustained while skiing at their resort. Mount Oakland Ski Resort filed a motion for summary judgment.
2. In their motion, Mount Oakland Ski Resort argues that Bernard signed a release of liability prior to skiing that bars his claims against the resort. They also argue the risks of skiing were open and obvious and the resort had no duty to protect Bernard from them.
3. The court will decide the motion by determining whether the release of liability is enforceable and whether the risks were truly open and obvious, relieving the resort of a duty of care.
John gellene talk lou jones breakfast materialsLaser Haas
The document summarizes the case of U.S. v. Gellene, in which John Gellene, a partner at the law firm Milbank, was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and perjury for making false statements and omissions in required disclosures to the bankruptcy court regarding Milbank's representation of other parties in the Bucyrus-Erie bankruptcy case. While Gellene claimed he did not have fraudulent intent and some of his omissions were not material, the court found the evidence showed Gellene understood disclosure requirements and intentionally withheld information over two years. The case is presented as a cautionary tale for lawyers, but one where pressures of large firm practice and a "tournament" culture,
This memorandum supports plaintiff Carol Broad's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Herb Hancock from demolishing and reconstructing his property. The memorandum argues that Broad is likely to succeed on the merits because Hancock's construction plans violate the governing documents of their homeowners association and Broad's express easement for air and light. It asserts that Broad will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction and that the balance of hardships weighs in her favor. The memorandum concludes that both a preliminary and permanent injunction should be granted to prevent Hancock from breaching the covenant and violating Broad's property rights.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Ms. Randolph is appealing her conviction and sentence. She filed an emergency motion for release pending appeal after the district court denied her request. She argues that she meets the criteria for release: (1) she does not pose a risk of flight or danger; and (2) her appeal raises substantial questions that could result in reversal or a new trial. Specifically, she cites issues with the sufficiency of evidence, discovery violations, and errors in the government's billing spreadsheets presented at trial. She requests that the court grant her release pending resolution of her appeal.
This document is a memorandum submitted by Plaintiffs' attorneys in support of a motion for a temporary restraining order against Defendants. It summarizes the arguments made in previous filings and addresses issues raised in the State's opposition memorandum. Specifically, it argues that the Attorney General's Opinion No. 13-1 misinterprets the meaning and intent of Article I, Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It also argues that federal justiciability standards of an actual controversy, ripeness, and standing do not apply given that this involves a matter of great public importance under Hawaii law. The memorandum aims to demonstrate the Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits in their request for a declaratory judgment on the meaning of
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
WATERSHED: Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit Could End Financial TyrannyZurich Files
WATERSHED: Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit Could End Financial Tyranny -- lawsuit against UN, OITC, WEF, Italian Republic and related parties. Keenan complaint, 2011-Nov-23. Also headlined as: "CONFIRMED: The Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit That Could End Financial Tyranny".
This document summarizes key issues in removing bad faith litigation from state to federal court, including improper joinder and establishing the amount in controversy. It also discusses procedural issues like concurrent litigation, choice of law analyses, and enforcing or ignoring choice of law clauses in insurance contracts. The document is from a national forum on bad faith claims and litigation, and provides an overview of removal procedures and the tests used to determine improper joinder or the applicability of state versus federal law.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court against Edward Snowden, filmmakers involved in the documentary Citizenfour, and their production companies. It alleges that Snowden breached his security agreements and oath by stealing and disseminating classified government information. It further alleges that the filmmakers aided and abetted Snowden's illegal acts by collaborating with him to profit from the stolen information and cloak his actions as whistleblowing rather than espionage. The complaint seeks a constructive trust over profits from Citizenfour to remedy damage to national security and unjust enrichment by the defendants.
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeMike Keyes
This document is a court filing that recommends granting in part a motion for default judgment against two defendants, Haz Investments LLC and Hazim Assaf, in a trademark infringement lawsuit. The plaintiff, GS Holistic LLC, alleges the defendants sold counterfeit products bearing GS's trademarks without authorization. As the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the clerk entered default against them. The court filing analyzes the applicable legal standards and finds default judgment is warranted procedurally and substantively for some of the plaintiff's claims. It recommends awarding $15,000 in statutory damages, $782 in costs, and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker to remove public records about McMillan's being named in a child molestation investigation. The report is contained as an exhibit in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL and can also be seen on this profile.
Nonetheless, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney suffered a miserable loss in San Diego federal court, then appealed the loss to the Ninth Circuit. San Diego attorney Scott McMillan also filed an identical lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL. As expected, the Ninth Circuit found the lawsuit against Darren Chaker was meritless.
Now, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan is facing two anti-SLAPP motions in San Diego Superior Court and of course the inevitable embarrassment of losing his case, which is almost as bad as Scott McMillan having been sued twice recently for fraud and legal malpractice.
The document is a motion by the State of Georgia opposing the defendant's special demurrer and plea in bar regarding charges of theft by conversion. The motion argues that the indictment is valid as it provides notice of the charges, lists the elements of the crime, and alleges the offense occurred within the statute of limitations. Specifically, the indictment claims the defendant misappropriated over $500 in public funds intended for a business center between 2007 and 2013, and the state brought charges in 2015 within the limitation period.
This document discusses spoliation of evidence claims and the preservation and destruction of evidence. It covers:
1) What constitutes evidence, including documents, testimony, tangible objects, video footage, computer data, logs, witness statements, samples, recordings, and more.
2) How the destruction of evidence can lead to an "adverse presumption" against the destroying party, meaning a jury may presume the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
3) Available remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions like fines, dismissal, or default judgment, as well as allowing an adverse presumption instruction to the jury.
4) Defenses to spoliation claims include if litigation was not foreseen,
This document is a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge regarding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by the defendant, Info Directions, Inc. The plaintiff, Transverse LLC, alleges that Info Directions interfered with its contract and misappropriated its trade secrets related to billing software. The magistrate judge provides background on the parties and claims, summarizes the legal standards for personal jurisdiction, and will make a recommendation to the district court judge on the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges of theft of services and disorderly conduct for lack of probable cause. Regarding the theft charge, the court found that the defendant had a legal right under his lease to use a dumpster for trash, and that using the wrong dumpster on the property did not constitute a crime. For the disorderly conduct charge, the court determined there was insufficient context or evidence of when the alleged threatening statements occurred to support the charge. Therefore, both charges were dismissed.
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-kyZ Research
The Supreme Court denied interlocutory relief to two nursing homes seeking to compel arbitration based on arbitration agreements signed by attorneys-in-fact during admission to the nursing homes. The Court found that the power-of-attorney instruments did not grant the attorneys-in-fact authority to waive the residents' right to access the courts. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that wrongful death beneficiaries cannot be bound by arbitration agreements signed on behalf of the deceased.
This document summarizes a court case between First American Title Insurance Company, Winnebago County Title Company, and TCF Bank regarding a mortgage on a property owned by Patricia Bartholomew. TCF Bank held the first mortgage on the property as a revolving line of credit. Winnebago acted as an agent in a second mortgage taken out by Bartholomew. Winnebago paid off the TCF Bank mortgage but TCF did not release its lien. Bartholomew then took out more funds through the revolving credit and defaulted. The court found that TCF Bank was not legally required to release the lien until the revolving credit was cancelled by Bartholomew. However
This document is Defendant's brief in support of a motion for summary disposition in a case regarding a car accident. It argues that summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116 (C)(10) and (C)(8) because Plaintiff cannot establish specific facts to support their claim or a valid legal basis for the claim. It also argues that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Defendant's liability under the Michigan No-Fault Act. The brief provides background on the standards for summary disposition and reviews the purpose and relevant sections of the Michigan No-Fault Act regarding insurance requirements.
John J. Pankauski is a partner with Pankauski Hauser PLLC in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Pankauski has spent over 20 years of his career handling matters involving wills, trusts, estates, probates, and guardianships. His practice is limited to disputes, trials and appeals of such matters. He is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubel.
1. John Bernard filed a lawsuit against Mount Oakland Ski Resort for injuries sustained while skiing at their resort. Mount Oakland Ski Resort filed a motion for summary judgment.
2. In their motion, Mount Oakland Ski Resort argues that Bernard signed a release of liability prior to skiing that bars his claims against the resort. They also argue the risks of skiing were open and obvious and the resort had no duty to protect Bernard from them.
3. The court will decide the motion by determining whether the release of liability is enforceable and whether the risks were truly open and obvious, relieving the resort of a duty of care.
John gellene talk lou jones breakfast materialsLaser Haas
The document summarizes the case of U.S. v. Gellene, in which John Gellene, a partner at the law firm Milbank, was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and perjury for making false statements and omissions in required disclosures to the bankruptcy court regarding Milbank's representation of other parties in the Bucyrus-Erie bankruptcy case. While Gellene claimed he did not have fraudulent intent and some of his omissions were not material, the court found the evidence showed Gellene understood disclosure requirements and intentionally withheld information over two years. The case is presented as a cautionary tale for lawyers, but one where pressures of large firm practice and a "tournament" culture,
This memorandum supports plaintiff Carol Broad's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Herb Hancock from demolishing and reconstructing his property. The memorandum argues that Broad is likely to succeed on the merits because Hancock's construction plans violate the governing documents of their homeowners association and Broad's express easement for air and light. It asserts that Broad will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction and that the balance of hardships weighs in her favor. The memorandum concludes that both a preliminary and permanent injunction should be granted to prevent Hancock from breaching the covenant and violating Broad's property rights.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Ms. Randolph is appealing her conviction and sentence. She filed an emergency motion for release pending appeal after the district court denied her request. She argues that she meets the criteria for release: (1) she does not pose a risk of flight or danger; and (2) her appeal raises substantial questions that could result in reversal or a new trial. Specifically, she cites issues with the sufficiency of evidence, discovery violations, and errors in the government's billing spreadsheets presented at trial. She requests that the court grant her release pending resolution of her appeal.
This document is a memorandum submitted by Plaintiffs' attorneys in support of a motion for a temporary restraining order against Defendants. It summarizes the arguments made in previous filings and addresses issues raised in the State's opposition memorandum. Specifically, it argues that the Attorney General's Opinion No. 13-1 misinterprets the meaning and intent of Article I, Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It also argues that federal justiciability standards of an actual controversy, ripeness, and standing do not apply given that this involves a matter of great public importance under Hawaii law. The memorandum aims to demonstrate the Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits in their request for a declaratory judgment on the meaning of
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
WATERSHED: Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit Could End Financial TyrannyZurich Files
WATERSHED: Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit Could End Financial Tyranny -- lawsuit against UN, OITC, WEF, Italian Republic and related parties. Keenan complaint, 2011-Nov-23. Also headlined as: "CONFIRMED: The Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit That Could End Financial Tyranny".
This document summarizes key issues in removing bad faith litigation from state to federal court, including improper joinder and establishing the amount in controversy. It also discusses procedural issues like concurrent litigation, choice of law analyses, and enforcing or ignoring choice of law clauses in insurance contracts. The document is from a national forum on bad faith claims and litigation, and provides an overview of removal procedures and the tests used to determine improper joinder or the applicability of state versus federal law.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court against Edward Snowden, filmmakers involved in the documentary Citizenfour, and their production companies. It alleges that Snowden breached his security agreements and oath by stealing and disseminating classified government information. It further alleges that the filmmakers aided and abetted Snowden's illegal acts by collaborating with him to profit from the stolen information and cloak his actions as whistleblowing rather than espionage. The complaint seeks a constructive trust over profits from Citizenfour to remedy damage to national security and unjust enrichment by the defendants.
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeMike Keyes
This document is a court filing that recommends granting in part a motion for default judgment against two defendants, Haz Investments LLC and Hazim Assaf, in a trademark infringement lawsuit. The plaintiff, GS Holistic LLC, alleges the defendants sold counterfeit products bearing GS's trademarks without authorization. As the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the clerk entered default against them. The court filing analyzes the applicable legal standards and finds default judgment is warranted procedurally and substantively for some of the plaintiff's claims. It recommends awarding $15,000 in statutory damages, $782 in costs, and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker to remove public records about McMillan's being named in a child molestation investigation. The report is contained as an exhibit in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL and can also be seen on this profile.
Nonetheless, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney suffered a miserable loss in San Diego federal court, then appealed the loss to the Ninth Circuit. San Diego attorney Scott McMillan also filed an identical lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL. As expected, the Ninth Circuit found the lawsuit against Darren Chaker was meritless.
Now, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan is facing two anti-SLAPP motions in San Diego Superior Court and of course the inevitable embarrassment of losing his case, which is almost as bad as Scott McMillan having been sued twice recently for fraud and legal malpractice.
The document is a motion by the State of Georgia opposing the defendant's special demurrer and plea in bar regarding charges of theft by conversion. The motion argues that the indictment is valid as it provides notice of the charges, lists the elements of the crime, and alleges the offense occurred within the statute of limitations. Specifically, the indictment claims the defendant misappropriated over $500 in public funds intended for a business center between 2007 and 2013, and the state brought charges in 2015 within the limitation period.
This document discusses spoliation of evidence claims and the preservation and destruction of evidence. It covers:
1) What constitutes evidence, including documents, testimony, tangible objects, video footage, computer data, logs, witness statements, samples, recordings, and more.
2) How the destruction of evidence can lead to an "adverse presumption" against the destroying party, meaning a jury may presume the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
3) Available remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions like fines, dismissal, or default judgment, as well as allowing an adverse presumption instruction to the jury.
4) Defenses to spoliation claims include if litigation was not foreseen,
This document is a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge regarding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by the defendant, Info Directions, Inc. The plaintiff, Transverse LLC, alleges that Info Directions interfered with its contract and misappropriated its trade secrets related to billing software. The magistrate judge provides background on the parties and claims, summarizes the legal standards for personal jurisdiction, and will make a recommendation to the district court judge on the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges of theft of services and disorderly conduct for lack of probable cause. Regarding the theft charge, the court found that the defendant had a legal right under his lease to use a dumpster for trash, and that using the wrong dumpster on the property did not constitute a crime. For the disorderly conduct charge, the court determined there was insufficient context or evidence of when the alleged threatening statements occurred to support the charge. Therefore, both charges were dismissed.
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-kyZ Research
The Supreme Court denied interlocutory relief to two nursing homes seeking to compel arbitration based on arbitration agreements signed by attorneys-in-fact during admission to the nursing homes. The Court found that the power-of-attorney instruments did not grant the attorneys-in-fact authority to waive the residents' right to access the courts. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that wrongful death beneficiaries cannot be bound by arbitration agreements signed on behalf of the deceased.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
121815 - OBJECTION TO 120815 ORDER ON OBJECTION (Townsend Matter)VogelDenise
POWER WITH "WE THE PEOPLE" - KNOW YOUR LEGAL/LAWFUL RIGHTS TO OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S DESPOTISM GOVERNMENT and have a GOVERNMENT that WORKS for "WE THE PEOPLE!"
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - Overthrowing Despotism, Political Corruption, Judicial Corruption/Injustices. . . .HEALING and RESTORING a NATION!
COUNT 4 - CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (For UIE...Criminal Complaint)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA’S A/K/A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S CONFEDERATES, KU KLUX KLAN, WHITE SUPREMACISTS/ZIONISTS CONSPIRE TO HAVE THE UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY’S INTERIM PRIME MINISTER VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME ASSASSINATED AND/OR MURDERED
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
Plaintiff Phillip Lee Walters filed a motion to remand a negligence lawsuit back to state court that was removed to federal court by defendants Samuel Patterson and Keen Transport based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that removal was improper because the defendants did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as is required for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff notes that the complaint does not specify a damages amount and contends that the defendants rely only on unsupported assumptions to claim the threshold is met rather than providing evidence, as is required. The plaintiff requests that the case be remanded back to state court due to lack of federal jurisdiction.
The document summarizes a court case involving defendants Robert Martins and Antonio Guastella who were convicted of money laundering, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the admission of their co-conspirators' guilty plea allocutions violated their rights under the Confrontation Clause. The court found that (1) admitting the plea allocutions did violate the defendants' rights given they could not cross-examine the co-conspirators, but (2) the error was harmless because the evidence against the defendants, such as documentary evidence establishing they set up fake banks together, was overwhelming. The convictions were therefore upheld.
York County, Virginia General District Court Filing Traffic CourtChuck Thompson
http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Posted for a story posted on the linked website dated April 22nd, 2015. Shows how the court ignored the rules of the court and railroaded a person who was fraudulently charged in our opinion.
order Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Fri 12:58 PM
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion for Leave to Add Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs and for Leave to Add Facts to the Complaint; granting 62 Motion to Amend 60 Motion. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/8/16.
1. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-6012
___________________________
In re: Doug Walker; Carmen Walker
lllllllllllllllllllllDebtors
------------------------------
Sailor Music; Controversy Music; Innocent Bystander; Write Treatage Music;
Universal Polygram International Publishing, Inc.; Hideout Records and
Distributors, Inc., (Gear Publishing Division)
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Doug Walker
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: July 17, 2014
Filed: August 8, 2014
____________
Before KRESSEL, SALADINO and SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judges.
____________
2. 2
KRESSEL, Bankruptcy Judge.
The debtor, Doug Walker, appeals the bankruptcy court’s1
order determining
that a debt arising from a civil judgment in favor of the appellees, Sailor Music,
Controversy Music, Innocent Bystander, Write Treatage Music, Universal
Polygram International Publishing, Inc. and Hideout Records and Distributors,
Inc., for copyright infringement was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §
523(a)(6). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The debtor was a managing member of Twister’s Iron Horse Saloon. He
was involved in various day-to-day operations such as maintaining inventory and
cash registers and making bank deposits. Under the debtor’s control, Twister’s
often played music and hosted musical performances. Some of the music played
or performed was included in the repertoire of the American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers. ASCAP is a professional membership
organization of song writers, composers and music publishers. In accordance with
Federal copyright law, ASCAP licenses and promotes the music of its members. It
also obtains compensation for the public performances of their works and
distributes the royalties based upon on those performances. The appellees granted
ASCAP a nonexclusive right to license public performance rights of their works.
Twister’s did not hold a public performance license. ASCAP became aware
of this and promptly contacted the debtor to offer him a license. The debtor did not
respond to ASCAP’s offer. Thereafter, from May 2006 through September 2009,
1
The Honorable Kathy A. Surratt-States, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
3. 3
ASCAP unsuccessfully attempted to contact the debtor 44 times: twice in person,
14 times by mail and 28 times by telephone. The mail was sent to the debtor’s
attention at the address listed for Twister’s by the Missouri Secretary of State and
Alcohol Beverage Licensing. None of the mail was returned as undeliverable. The
phone calls were made on various days and at various times. Despite the fact that
the debtor was often present at Twister’s, ASCAP was unable to reach him.
Receiving no response from the debtor, ASCAP sent an investigator to
Twister’s. On July 15, 2009, the investigator arrived at Twister’s and took note of
all the songs that were played during the time he was present. At least four
unauthorized performances of the appellees’ copyrighted material took place.
In a letter dated September 17, 2009, ASCAP informed the debtor of the
violations and offered to settle. The letter was delivered to Twister’s return receipt
requested. The receipt was signed by the debtor and confirmed that delivery was
made on September 23, 2009. The debtor does not dispute that he signed the
receipt, however, he claims that he could not recall reading the letter.
Consequently, he did not accept the settlement offer.
In June 2010, the appellees brought an action for copyright infringement
against the debtor and Twister’s in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Missouri. The debtor failed to comply with discovery and the district
court entered a default judgment against the debtor as to his liability as a sanction
for his willful failure to comply. On August 3, 2011, a final judgment was entered
against the debtor and Twister’s, jointly and severally, in the amount of $41,231.90
for violating Federal copyright law.
4. 4
On November 16, 2011, the debtor filed a chapter 7 petition. Shortly
thereafter, the appellees filed this adversary proceeding to determine the
dischargeability of their judgment. The appellees argued that the debt was
nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6) because the debtor’s actions were willful
and malicious.
A trial was held and the bankruptcy court issued a written opinion holding
that the debtor had willfully failed to obtain an ASCAP license and maliciously
disregarded the rights of ASCAP’s members and Federal copyright law. As such,
the debt was excepted from discharge and a judgment to that effect was entered.
The debtor filed a timely notice of appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo. Johnson v. Fors (In re Fors), 259 B.R. 131, 135 (B.A.P. 8th
Cir. 2001) (citing Snyder v. Dewoskin (In re Mahendra), 131 F.3d 750, 754 (8th
Cir. 1997)). “‘The bankruptcy court’s determination of whether a party acted
willfully and maliciously inherently involves inquiry into and finding of intent,
which is a question of fact.’” Id. (quoting Eldridge v. Waugh (In re Waugh), 95
F.3d 706, 710 (8th Cir. 1996)).
LAW
Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b) or 1328(b) of this
title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –
(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or
to the property of another entity.
5. 5
A plaintiff must prove nondischargeability by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Fischer v. Scarborough (In re Scarborough), 171 F.3d 638, 641 (8th
Cir. 1999). It is well established in the Eighth Circuit that the elements of ‘malice’
and ‘willfulness’ must be separately analyzed. Barclays American/Bus. Credit,
Inc. v. Long (In re Long), 774 F.2d 875 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Johnson v. Miera
(In re Miera), 926 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1991); In re Fors, 259 B.R. 131.
“The word ‘willful’ in (a)(6) modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that
nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate
or intentional act that leads to injury…” Kawaauhua v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61
(1998). The ‘willful’ element is a subjective one. Blocker v. Patch (In re Patch),
526 F.3d 1176, 1180 (8th Cir. 2008). “If the debtor knows that the consequences
are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct, the debtor is treated
as if he had, in fact, desired to produce those consequence.” Id.
Malice requires more than just reckless behavior by the debtor.
Scarborough, 171 F.3d at 641 (citing In re Miera, 926 F.2d at 743). The defendant
must have acted with the intent to harm, rather than merely acting intentionally in a
way that resulted in harm. Id. “‘Circumstantial evidence of the debtor’s state of
mind [can] be used to ascertain whether malice existed.’” In re Fors, 259 B.R. at
139 (quoting In re Miera, 926 F.2d at 744).
“‘If the debtor was aware of the plaintiff-creditor’s right under law to be free
of the invasive conduct of others (conduct of the sort redressed by the law on the
underlying tort) and nonetheless proceeded to act to effect the invasion with
particular reference to the plaintiff, willfulness is established. If in so doing the
debtor intended to bring about a loss in fact that would be detrimental to the
6. 6
plaintiff, whether specific sort of loss the plaintiff actually suffered or not, malice
is established.’” Sells v. Porter (In re Porter), 375 B.R. 822, 828 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.
2007) aff’d, 539 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting KYMN, Inc. v. Langeslag (In re
Langeslag), 366 B.R. 51, 59 (Bankr. D. Minn 2007)).
ANALYSIS
The debtor argues that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that
maliciousness and willfulness had been established by a preponderance of the
evidence. He maintains that he could not have intentionally injured the appellees
because he was unaware that Twister’s needed a public performance license.
According to the debtor, he did not receive any of ASCAP’s attempted contact and
the first time he was aware of any possible copyright violation was when the
appellees filed suit against him in Federal district court. One of the problems with
the debtor’s argument is his failure to distinguish between the concepts of injury
and harm. His argument also flies in the face of the factual findings of the
bankruptcy court.
Willfulness
The Supreme Court in Geiger analyzed willfulness in terms of injury. Injury
is the “invasion of any legally protected interest of another.” Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 7(1). Under § 523(a)(6), a judgment debt cannot be exempt from
discharge unless it is based on an intentional tort, which requires the actor to intend
“the consequences of the act rather than the act itself.” Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 8A, comment a, at 15; Geiger, 523 U.S. at 61. In effect, Geiger requires
that the debtor intend the injury. See also Allstate Ins. v. Dziuk (In re Dziuk), 218
B.R. 485 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998); In re Porter, 375 B.R. 822.
7. 7
The debtor argues that to prevail on the willfulness element, the appellees
must prove that they actually made contact with him so he could develop the
requisite knowing intent to injure appellees. According to the debtor, absent proof
that the appellees made contact, it is too speculative for the court to conclude that
the appellant had the actual intent to harm the appellees.
The debtor’s position is both unpersuasive and clearly contrary to the record.
It was the debtor’s duty, and within the scope of his professional authority, to
obtain the proper license. As the managing member, it was also his responsibly to
ensure that Twister’s was complying with the applicable laws. In this case, the
debtor blatantly failed to comply with Federal copyright law.
In a span of three years, ASCAP attempted to contact the debtor an
astounding 44 times. ASCAP mailed letters, telephoned the debtor and attempted
to contact him in person. In fact, ASCAP even mailed a settlement offer return
receipt requested, which the debtor himself signed. Based on these facts, the
bankruptcy court found that the debtor had intentionally ignored ASCAP’s
correspondence and thwarted ASCAP’s attempts to contact him. The court clearly
did not believe that he had not received any of the messages or read the letters.
The bankruptcy court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.
“The bankruptcy court’s impression of the credibility of the witnesses is
entitled to great weight.” In re Fors, 259 B.R. at 140 (citing Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Co. v. Barber (In re Barber), 95 B.R. 684, 688 n. 14 (Bankr. W.D.
Mo. 1988)). “Due regard must be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy judge
to assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. (citing Walters v. Occidental
Petroleum Corp. (In re Fin. Corp.), 1 B.R. 522, 525 (W.D. Mo. 1979), aff’d, 634
8. 8
F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1980); See also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013. The bankruptcy court
did not believe that all 44 attempts at contact somehow slipped by the debtor.
ASCAP’s attempted communication was thorough and unrelenting. In this case,
even the most unorganized and incompetent management staff would be hard
pressed to convince the bankruptcy court of the debtor’s obliviousness.
The debtor intentionally invaded the appellees’ legally protected rights
under Federal copyright law and thus intended the injury to the appellees. These
actions go beyond mere recklessness and are willful.
Maliciousness
In Long, the Eighth Circuit analyzed maliciousness in terms of harm. Long,
774 F.2d at 881. Harm is the “existence of loss or detriment in fact of any kind to
a person resulting from any case.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 7(2).
In this case, the debtor’s actions were malicious because he intended to harm
the appellees. The debtor did not obtain a public performance license yet he
continued to play music covered by the license. The district court for the Eastern
District of Missouri found the debtor to be in violation of Federal copyright law
and entered judgment against him. The Eighth Circuit has held that the bankruptcy
court may consider a violation of a statute as evidence of malicious intent. In re
Fors, 259 B.R. at 139. And, one court has held that the debtor’s intentional
violation of a Federal copyright law was an aggravating feature which evinces a
voluntary willingness to inflict injury. Knight Kitchen Music v. Pineau (In re
Pineau), 149 B.R. 239 (D. Me. 1993).
9. 9
For the same reasons that the bankruptcy court found that the debtor knew
he was violating the appellees’ legal rights, it found that he knew they were
entitled to be paid royalties which the debtor was avoiding by not obtaining a
license. As a consequence, he intended to harm the appellees, making his actions
malicious.
At trial, the debtor admitted that he had some general knowledge of Federal
copyright law and royalties. With this general knowledge, the debtor knew or
should have known that the natural consequence of a failure to obtain a license is
financial harm to the appellees. Considering the district court’s finding and the
debtor’s admitted knowledge of Federal copyright law, we agree with the
bankruptcy court and conclude that the debtor intended to bring about the loss that
the appellees suffered.
CONCLUSION
The debtor’s actions were both willful and malicious, therefore, the
appellee’s claim is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6). The judgment of
the bankruptcy court is affirmed.
_____________________