Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, brought an action against Chase, alleging that it increased his interest rates retroactively to the beginning of this payment cycle after his account was closed to new transactions as a result of a late payment to Chase or another creditor. The court had previously issued an opinion reversing the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiff's federal and state claims. However, Chase sought Supreme Court review of the court's decision and the Supreme Court reversed with respect to the federal claim and remanded for further proceedings. Consequently, the court withdrew its prior opinion and, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's first cause of action under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601-1615, for failure to notify of rate increase, as well as plaintiff's sixth cause of action for breach of contract for failure to notify him "of any change if required by applicable law." Although the Supreme Court's decision did not specifically address the court's ruling on plaintiff's state law claims, the court held: as Delaware law permitted the actions taken by Chase, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's second, third, and fourth state law causes of action were foreclosed; plaintiff's fifth cause of action failed to state a claim for consumer fraud under 6 Del. C. 2513(a); and plaintiff's seventh cause of action failed to state a claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order granting American Bankers Insurance Company's (American Bankers) motion to set aside default judgment for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiffs argued that once the district court concluded that American Bankers acted culpably in failing to respond to the complaint, it was precluded as a matter of law from setting aside the default judgment. The court found that a district court could exercise its discretion to deny relief to a defaulting defendant based solely upon a finding of defendant's culpability, but it need not do so. The court concluded that the district court's finding that American Bankers acted culpably did not preclude it, as a matter of law, from setting aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) based upon excusable neglect. Therefore, the court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard and that it did not abuse its discretion.

In connection with an assessment of a taxpayer for unpaid taxes, the IRS began searching for the taxpayer's assets and issued a summons to a bank for a related third party's account information. The taxpayer and third party argued that 26 U.S.C 7609 required the IRS to notify them, which would have enabled them to seek a court order quashing the summons. Applying Ip v. United States, the court held that under the circumstances of the case, no notice was necessary. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This case stemmed from credit agreements Lehman entities entered into with Palmdale Hills, LLC entities. Palmdale filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008 and Lehman subsequently filed eight motions for relief from Palmdale's stay to foreclose on the collateral securing the loans that were in default. The court held that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) correctly held that Lehman had standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's finding that the automatic stay did not prevent equitably subordinating Lehman's claims. The court also held that the BAP correctly determined that the appeal was not moot. The court further held that the BAP correctly determined that Lehman's automatic stay prevented Lehman's claims from being subordinated. Accordingly the court affirmed the BAP's judgment.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss where plaintiff claimed that defendant violated a section of California's Rees-Levering Act (Act), Cal. Civ. Code 2983.2(a), which required a car loan lender to provide certain post-repossession notices to a defaulting borrower prior to selling the repossessed car. At issue was whether the Act's notice requirements were preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 C.F.R. 7.4008, and its regulations. The court held that because the Act sections at issue were directed toward debt collection and were therefore not preempted by the NBA, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.