This case involved debtor Fred Cranmer's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of his Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court had required inclusion of the debtor's and his spouse's Social Security income in the calculation of projected disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) and treated its exclusion as relevant to good faith. The district court reversed, holding that 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B) expressly excludes Social Security benefits from current monthly income and that 42 U.S.C. § 407 further protects those benefits from being considered in the projected disposable income analysis. The court found that the bankruptcy court's approach was inconsistent with the statutory text and the Supreme Court's decision in Hamilton v. Lanning, and remanded for further proceedings.
In Zimpfer v. Aramark Management Services, LP, the plaintiff, a grounds worker, alleged retaliatory discharge under Title VII after reporting to management that he had discovered two coworkers engaged in sexual activity in a supply closet and that his supervisor took no action. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie retaliation claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff could not have held a good-faith, reasonable belief that the reported conduct violated Title VII. The opinion reasoned that an isolated instance of consensual sexual activity does not constitute actionable sexual harassment, and existing precedent requires the opposed practice to be one that a reasonable person would view as unlawful discrimination. Because this finding disposed of the claim, the court did not address the defendant's other arguments.
Plaintiffs, former students at Everest College owned by Defendant Corinthian Colleges, filed a putative class action alleging deceptive practices under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act as well as claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and declaratory judgment. Defendant moved to compel individual arbitration and stay the proceedings under arbitration provisions in the students' enrollment agreements, some of which included class-action waivers. The court granted the motion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates enforcement of the agreements because the Plaintiffs did not dispute their existence or that the claims fell within their scope. The court rejected arguments that the UCSPA barred the waivers or that the agreements were unconscionable, relying on the FAA's strong policy favoring arbitration and Supreme Court precedent such as Stolt-Nielsen requiring a contractual basis for class arbitration.
This case involved former Hertz employee Michael Sell suing the company after his termination in a 2009 reduction in force, alleging breach of contract, violation of the Utah Payment of Wages Act, and promissory estoppel over unpaid quarterly bonuses under the company's Off-Airport Bonus Plan for the first and second quarters of 2008. The bonuses were tied to increased revenue from temporary Micron Technology rentals at Sell's location, which Hertz treated as excludable windfalls under the plan's terms. The court granted Hertz's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that Sell's at-will employment included clear disclaimers that the bonus plan was discretionary, not a binding contract, and subject to modification or exclusion of items at Hertz's sole discretion, so there was no enforceable promise or reasonable reliance to support any of the claims.
This admiralty case arose from an incident on Lake Powell in which houseboat renters allegedly suffered carbon monoxide poisoning, resulting in injuries and one death. Aramark, the vessel owner, filed a limitation of liability proceeding under the Limitation of Liability Act and obtained a court order restraining all other suits related to the incident. The Howeth claimants, who had received notice and participated in the limitation action, nonetheless filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Illinois naming Aramark as a defendant and moved to lift the restraining order. The court denied the motion to dissolve the stay, granted Aramark's motion for civil contempt, and awarded attorney fees, reasoning that the restraining order was clear and unambiguous, the claimants had actual notice of it, and their filing violated the procedures governing limitation proceedings.
This case concerns a dispute between SCO and Novell over ownership of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights and related rights following Novell's sale of part of its UNIX business to Santa Cruz (SCO's predecessor) under a 1990s Asset Purchase Agreement. A jury found that the amended APA did not transfer the copyrights from Novell to SCO, so SCO's slander of title claim was not reached. The court is left to decide SCO's claim for specific performance to compel copyright transfer, Novell's counterclaim for declaratory judgment on its rights under APA Section 4.16, and SCO's claim that Novell breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in exercising those rights, along with related findings of fact on the parties, technology, and agreement terms.
