E-news

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[10/08] Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC
In an action against defendants for tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud plaintiff and convert its property, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) grant of defendant's motion to take judicial notice of a financing statement it filed was not error; 2) one tortious interference claim failed as the allegations did not show that the defendant acted without justification, and the other claim was properly dismissed; 3) fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were meritless; 4) conversion and replevin claims failed as plaintiff possessed no property interest that it could enforce against defendants; and 5) civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims failed as there was no requisite underlying fraud, conversion or tort supporting such claims.

[10/03] US v. Dimitrov
Conviction for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business is affirmed where: 1) the statute at issue was not unconstitutionally vague despite not including knowledge of the licensing requirement as an element of the crime; and 2) the statute did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the states.

[10/02] Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino
In an action for nonpayment of a home loan, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) as a matter of law, plaintiff-bank's unjust enrichment cause of action based on mistake did not begin to accrue until September 15, 2000, at the earliest; 2) because plaintiff filed its complaint on September 5, 2003, its unjust enrichment cause of action was timely asserted within the applicable three-year statute of limitations; 3) in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, the trial court correctly concluded plaintiff's unjust enrichment cause of action was timely filed; 4) to the extent the trial court addressed defendant's affirmative defense of unclean hands in its order, that language was mere surplusage and unnecessary to its rejection of his summary judgment motion arguments; and 5) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the note of execution's attorney's fees provision and Civil Code section 1717.

More...