Cases

450 B.R. 231 (2011) In re Hannah Hyun LEE and Leo Richard Lussier, Debtors. FIA Card Services NA f/k/a MBNA America Bank NA, Plaintiff, v. Hannah Hyun Lee, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. G09-21406-REB. Adversary No. 09-2080. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Gainesville Division. January 31, 2011. *232 Elizabeth H. Par

MEMORANDUM Gerald Austin McHugh, United States District Judge In 2012, Wells Fargo brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Sonya Hoffmann, but lost following a bench trial. In 2016, it sued her again on the same debt, prompting Hoffmann to file the present action, in which she charges (for a second time) that Wells Fargo and its lawyers violated various consumer protection laws. Before me now are Mo

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1737 RICARDO A. GOMEZ and DEBORA GOMEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United State

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1737 RICARDO A. GOMEZ and DEBORA GOMEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United State

DAVIS, Justice: This matter involves two consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition filed under the original jurisdiction of this Court. The petition filed in Case No. 13-0086 was brought by the defendants in seven consolidated eases pending before the Circuit Court of Mason County; 1 and the petition in Case No. 1

AGEE, Circuit Judge: Virginia's Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement *943 (the "Division") appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court's decision to return Barry Webb's post-petition Chapter 13 payments to him. Webb fil

Case: 23-50237 Document: 89-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50237 ____________

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRAA. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this putative class action begin their Amended Complaint with the following statement: *466 The purpose of this lawsuit is to correct the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process abuses that have occu

MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING LVNV’S MOTION. TO DISMISS Jack B. Schmetterer, United States Bankruptcy Judge This Adversary Proceeding relates to the bankruptcy case filed by debtor-defendant Rose I. Avalos (“Debtor”) under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) and Resurgent Capital Services LP (“Resurgent,” collectively the “Claimants”) filed proofs of claim for debts that were past t

MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) John T. Gregg, United States Bankruptcy Judge This matter is before the court on a Motion to Dismiss and brief in support thereof [Adv. Dkt. No. 15] (collectively, the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed by LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (“Resurgent,” and together with LVNV, the Defendants”),

HOLDRIDGE, J. LThis appeal stems from an employment discrimination suit that a professor, Dr. Madhwa Raj, brought against his employer, Louisiana State University (LSU), its Board of Supervisors (LSU Board), and the LSU Health and Sciences Center in New Orleans (LSU Health). Dr. Raj alleged that the defendants “harassed” him for not procuring enough grant money. The defendants responded with a peremptory exception raising an

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MEMORANDUM OPINION Randal S. Mashburn, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy court is not automatically a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) when the underlying debt cannot be collected because of an applicable statute of limitations.' However, a so-called “stale” proof of claim is not necessarily protected from FDCPA exposure' merely because it arises in the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERT D. BERGER, Bankruptcy Judge. Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, Chapter 7 Trustee, and defendant U.S. Bank both seek summary judgment in this proceeding to determine whether the debtor’s return of the cash advance on February 2, 2010, is avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).

ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge. This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17). The parties have filed briefs in support of their respective positions, (Docs.17, 21, 22, 25, 27), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes the motion is due to be granted. BACKGROUND According to the co

FEENEY, Bankruptcy Judge. José R. Carrion, the chapter 13 trustee, appeals the order confirming the chapter 13 plan proposed by the debtors, Waldo Martinez Rivera and Glenda Colón López.1 For the reasons set forth below, the order is AFFIRMED. BACKGROUND2 The pertinent facts are uncontested. The debtors filed a chapter 13 petiti

OPINION Justice Flaherty, for the Court. This dispute has generated two separate appeals. The first is the appeal of the prevailing plaintiffs, Louis Paolino and Marie Issa (collectively plaintiffs), from adverse rulings made by the trial justice in favor of the defendants, Joseph I. Fer-reira, LKQ Corporation, the Joseph I. Ferreira

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined as to Part II by Judges REINHARDT and BERZON: The Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), albeit short on words, is a perplexing statute. Given the ink spilled in many judicial opinions, concurrences, and dissents, as well as scholarly articles, this brevity has not netted clarity. Nonetheless, desp

OPINION & ORDER Seibel, Judge. , Before the Court are Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 112), and Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Class Certification, (Doc, 99). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED as modified below. , *138

PER CURIAM: The Attorney General of Florida and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections of Florida (“State”) appeal the district court’s grant of George Porter, Jr.’s petition for federal habeas corpus relief. Porter was sentenced to death for the 1986 murder of Evelyn Williams, his former live-in lover. After exhausting his state post-conviction remedies, Porter filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petition for a