The following is a profile of the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California. Judge Dembin met with members of the Business Litigation Committee and the Insolvency Law Committee in his chambers at the James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep Courthouse in San Diego and discussed his personal and professional background, his appointment as a Magistrate Judge and his experience on the bench. Read more
Summary: Although a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement under the Bankruptcy Code breaches the contract, such action does not rescind it. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, rejection of the license in bankruptcy does not deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided First Circuit and resolved a circuit split. Read more
Please join the Nonprofit Organizations Committee for a program on the topic of “Blockchain 101: An Introduction to Blockchain Technology, Industry, and Regulation for Attorneys.” Our presenter is Michael J. Fluhr, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. This presentation will include a basic explanation of blockchain and cryptocurrency fundamentals, how different industries use this technology, and how the government regulates it. Read more
The California Department of Health Care Services prepared a Medi-Cal audit of Hoag Hospital’s 2009 cost report, determining that Hoag had to pay more than $2.4 million in reimbursements mandated by Assembly Bills (AB) 5 and 1183, which reduced the amount of certain Medi-Cal payments. Hoag filed a timely administrative appeal contesting the legality of the Assembly bills and the reimbursement deductions based on federal and state laws and constitutions. Hoag later filed a second appeal requesting that its existing appeal also address an alleged $620,903 calculation error to be corrected if AB 5 and 1183 were lawful. The ALJ dismissed Hoag’s first appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed its calculation error appeal as untimely. Read more
Ethan Lomeli’s guardian sued medical care providers for his birth injuries. Through Medi-Cal, the California Department of Health Care Services paid for his medical care before and during the lawsuit. After Lomeli settled with defendants for $4 million, the Department moved to impose a $267,159.60 lien on the settlement, seeking reimbursement for the care it provided. The trial court granted the motion, and Lomeli appealed. Read more
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in In re Miller, BAP No. CC 18-1267-SFL, filed March 11, 2019, reversed the bankruptcy court’s award of Rule 9011 sanctions in the amount of $50,875 because the claimant lacked standing to seek a recovery of his attorney’s fees. Read more
The Medical Board of California issued a subpoena demanding that Dr. Ron Kennedy produce the medical records of three minor patients for whom he had provided vaccination exemptions. When Dr. Kennedy refused to comply, the Board filed a petition in the superior court under Government Code section 11187 to compel compliance. The superior court granted the petition and ordered Dr. Kennedy to produce the records, then denied Dr. Kennedy’s request to stay that order pending appellate review. Dr. Kennedy appealed and filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas seeking a stay of the production order pending appeal. Read more
The following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest, In re Harish Venkat Reddy and Deepika Basi Reddy, 589 B.R. 867 (E.D. Cal 2018). Read more
In Easley v. Collection Serv. of Nev., 910 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) expanded the holding in In re Schwartz-Tallard, 803 F. 3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), to mean that debtors are entitled to recover appellate attorneys’ fees when successfully challenging an initial award of fees and costs awarded to them under section 362(k) for a willful violation of the automatic stay, not only when defending such award. Read more
In Bank of New York Mellon v. Lane (In re Lane), 589 B.R. 399 (9th Cir. BAP 2018), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (the "BAP") held that disallowance of a claim for lack of standing by the claimant did not also void the underlying lien under 11 U.S.C. section 506(d) because no argument had been made by the debtor that the lien or underlying obligation was substantively invalid. Read more