News
Business
- [03/10] Greek strike to shut down services Thursday
- [03/10] Oligarch wins suit against Russian broadcaster
- [03/10] World stocks up modestly; pound takes another hit
Litigation
- [03/10] Feds probe Toyota Prius crash in NYC suburb
- [03/10] NYC wins right to keep famed restaurant name
- [03/10] Animal activists target Calif. sushi restaurant
Real Estate
- [03/10] Barker donates $2.5 million to create PETA offices
- [03/09] Habitat for Humanity of Tennessee Hits 3,000 House Milestone
- [03/09] University of Illinois Private Residence Hall Locks in Housing Cost for Four Years
Securities Litigation
- [03/03] 10th guilty plea in Galleon insider trading case
- [02/04]
Top Headlines
- [03/10] Feds probe Toyota Prius crash in NYC suburb
- [03/10] DC courthouse busy with same-sex applications
- [03/10] 'Jihad Jane' indictment shows terror's evolution
Case Summaries
Property Law & Real Estate
[03/09]
Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.
[03/09]
Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[03/09]
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
