News

Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[11/01] Rosario v. American Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc.
In suit alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, summary judgment for defendants is reversed as corporate defendant is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

[10/31] Vaughn v. Am. Honda Motor Co. Inc.
In proceedings arising from a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Honda alleging odometers in certain Honda vehicles overstate actual mileage, objector's motion to stay an appeal bond in the amount of $150,000, set pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 7, is granted and objector is directed to file a bond for $1,000 instead as the district court abused its discretion in setting the bond amount.

[10/25] Forrest v. Universal Savings Bank, F.A.
In a suit alleging that a bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by obtaining plaintiff's credit information without a permissible purpose because a credit card letter and materials did not make a firm offer of credit, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the letter contained a minimum credit line and constituted an offer of value to plaintiff.

[10/23] Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC
In a consolidation of four suits under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, one decision is affirmed and the remaining three reversed and remanded where: 1) any written notice sent to a consumer's lawyer must contain the information that would be required by the Act if the notice were sent to the consumer directly; 2) a representation by a debt collector that would be unlikely to deceive a competent lawyer, even if he is not a specialist in consumer debt law, should not be actionable; 3) a misrepresentation is actionable whether made to the consumer directly, or indirectly through his lawyer; 4) a settlement offer contained in a letter from the debt collector to a consumer is not lawful per se; 5) debt collectors may include safe harbor language crafted by the court in order to avoid liability for settlement offers; 6) consumer survey evidence is appropriate to determine whether, in the absence of the safe harbor language, a sufficiently large segment of unsophisticated consumers are likely to be deceived by a settlement offer; 7) settlement offers directed to a consumer's lawyer are not actionable; and 8) a determination that a representation is or is not false, deceptive, or misleading under section 1692 of the Act is not always to be treated as a matter of law, and may be dismissed on the pleadings under certain circumstances.

[09/28] Lewis v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
In suit alleging violations of California's Automobile Sales Finance Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law, in the form of misrepresentations in a vehicle purchase contract, denial of motion for certification of proposed class is reversed where plaintiff has made an adequate showing for certification of the proposed class.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[11/05] Edwards v. Lexington Ins. Co.
In a suit to recover a personal injury award from a company's insurer after the company declared bankruptcy, summary judgment for defendant-insurer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had not produced evidence that he submitted notice of his claim within the claim period set forth in the insurance policy; 2) plaintiff's proffered reasons why the notice provision should not apply were without merit; and 3) there was no ambiguity in the effective date of a policy exclusion or the identity of the insured party to which the exclusion applied.

[11/05] In re: Smith
Orders granting Chapter 7 trustee's motion to remove special personal injury counsel and denying debtor's motion to dismiss her bankruptcy action are vacated in part where the bankruptcy court exceeded the bounds of its allowable discretion in denying the debtor's motion to dismiss.

[11/02] Knapp Med. Ctr. v. De La Garza
A court of appeals' judgment, which affirmed a trial court's judgment for damages in contract and fraud arising out of an oral settlement dispute, is reversed as the judgment was contrary to Tex. R. of Civ. Proc. 11, which requires that agreements between attorneys or parties touching any pending suit be in writing, signed and filed of record, or be made in open court and entered of record as a condition to enforcement.

[11/02] In Re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.
Although by its terms the forum-non-conveniens statute is permissive, the deference it affords trial courts is not unlimited. A trial court abuses its discretion if its forum-non-conveniens ruling is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 71.051(a).

[11/02] Smith v. Carbide & Chems. Corp.
In an environmental case involving a uranium enrichment facility, brought by plaintiffs claiming harm to their real property based on contamination caused by imperceptible particles, summary judgment for defendants on an intentional trespass claim is reversed and remanded pursuant to answers to certified questions from the Kentucky Supreme Court, specifically that: 1) proof of actual harm is not required to state a claim for an intentional trespass; and 2) the diminution in property value is a recognized measure of damages which can be used once an "actual injury?an interference with an owner's use of the land," has been established. Summary judgment on permanent private nuisance and strict liability claims is also reversed as: 1) the lower court erred in concluding that plaintiffs must produce evidence that defendants' contamination constituted a health hazard to proceed on the nuisance claim; and 2) plaintiffs have shown a genuine issue of material fact with respect to harm to their real property that would give rise to a claim of strict liability based on an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 519.

More...