FRBP 7056 Summary Judgment.
Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Gharbi (April 19, 2010)
Issue: Is Defendant’s continued use of the Century 21 mark a violation of the Lanham Act such that Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) for violations of § 1114(1)(a) and § 1125(a) and statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d) for each violation of § 1125(d)(1), and is such debt resulting from the Lanham Act violations non-dischargable under § 523(a)(6)?
Holding: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted as to violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and § 1125(a), and denied as to violations of § 1125(d), the dischargability issue, and damages.
Roberts v. Gharbi (December 8, 2009)
Issue: Should Motion for Summary Judgment be granted to sell the property owned by the Debtors, free and clear of liens and all other interests, under 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(3), when (1) partitioning the property is impracticable; (2) the benefit to the Estate of the sale of the Property, free of the interests of the co-owner, outweighs the detriment, if any, to the co-owner, the property; and (3) the Property is not used in the production, transmission, or distribution, for sale, of electric energy or of natural or synthetic gas for heat, light or power?
Holding: The Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted because there are no disputed material facts and Debtors failed to produce any evidence to contradict the Trustee’s assertion that he has authority to sell the Property.
Corn v. Corn (July 11, 2008)
Issue: At issue is the dischargeability of three debts incurred during the marriage of Channing and Elizabeth Corn. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant should remain liable to Plaintiff for certain marital debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), an exception to discharge for debts arising out of a divorce. Defendant contends in her motion for summary judgment that the Court must determine whether these obligations constitute spousal support under § 523(a)(5) (which she claims they are not), and therefore such debts are dischargeable.
Holding: The Court grants the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and will deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the debts were not in the nature of a domestic support obligation but were incurred in the course of the dissolution of the parties’ marital relationship.