Case Summaries

BANKRUPTCY LAW

9/16: IN RE: Gregory Joseph MILLER; Tammy Lynn Miller

In a bankruptcy action, where the bankruptcy court dismissed a creditor’s adversary complaint alleging that its legal fees were nondischargeable because the debt was obtained by fraud, and sanctioned the creditor, the district court’s ruling vacating the sanctions order is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court correctly concluded that the sanctions order violated the procedural “safe harbor” requirements of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011; but 2) reversed in part and remanded with instruction to permit the bankruptcy court to consider alternative avenues to impose sanctions.

09/12: In re AMR Corporation

The bankruptcy court’s decision authorizing debtors to obtain post-petition secured financing and to repay existing pre-petition debt owed to creditor U.S. Bank, and denying U.S. Bank’s request for relief from the automatic stay is affirmed, where: 1) per the language of the notes’ Indenture Agreements, the debtors’ voluntary petition for bankruptcy triggered a default that accelerated the debt but required no Make-Whole Amount payment in connection with debt repayment; 2) the pertinent clauses, contained in non-executory contracts, are not within the scope of 11 U.S.C. section 365(e)(1) and are not rendered unenforceable by any other Bankruptcy Code provision identified by U.S. Bank; 3) the debtors complied with its section 1110(a) elections to perform its obligations under the Indentures and cure any non-exempt defaults by making regularly scheduled principal and interest payments, and it was not required to cure its bankruptcy default; and 4) the bankruptcy court did not err in denying U.S. Bank’s motion to lift the automatic stay.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

[09/27] US v. Torres-Vazquez

Defendant’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering following his guilty plea are affirmed, where: 1) based upon defendant’s extensive admissions and the circumstances surrounding his possession and transportation of over $1,600,000 in drug-derived cash, a rational fact-finder could conclude that defendant intended to complete a financial transaction, that he conspired with others to this end, that he was aware that the funds in question were the proceeds of unlawful activities, and that those funds were to be used to purchase drugs, so the district court did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea; and 2) there was no sentencing error.

[09/27] US v. Agosto-Vega

A $2,000 sanction imposed upon defendant’s attorney and defendant for filing motions in limine immediately before defendant’s anticipated retrial is reversed, where nothing in the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, or the docket in this case, notified defense counsel of the district court’s deadline, or that sanctions might flow from filing the motions when he did.

FAMILY LAW

[09/25] In re J.D.

Juvenile court orders terminating Grandmother’s probate guardianship and placing minors with an aunt and uncle, and setting a permanency planning hearing, are affirmed, where: 1) a juvenile court has the authority to terminate a predependency probate guardianship in response to a motion filed by counsel for the dependent minors, whether or not the social services agency that initiated the dependency proceedings so recommends, and even if the probate guardianship was established in a different county; and as such, 2) Grandmother’s additional arguments fail.

[09/11] Yaman v. Yaman

The district court’s denial of a father’s petition for return of his two daughters to Turkey, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in rejecting the mother’s claims of sexual abuse under Article 13; 2) the Convention does not allow a federal district court to toll equitably the one-year period that must elapse before a parent can assert the “now settled” defense as is asserted by mother here; 3) the Convention does not prevent the district court from ordering the return of “now settled” children, and the district court erred in holding otherwise; but 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined, in the alternative, that it would not order the return of the “now settled” children under its equitable powers.