By Ed Boltz, 15 November, 2017
Abstract: The discharge injunction, which allows former debtors to be free from any efforts to collect former debt, is a primary feature of bankruptcy law in the United States. When creditors have systemically violated debtors’ discharge injunctions, some debtors have attempted to challenge those creditors through a class action lawsuit in bankruptcy court. However, the pervasiveness of class-waiving arbitration clauses likely prevents those debtors from disputing discharge injunction violations outside of binding, individual arbitration.
By Ed Boltz, 1 December, 2015
Summary: In a dispute between construction contractors, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order denying a demand for arbitration as untimely. Holding normally a trial court should determine the validity of an arbitration agreement (namely that a valid agreement exists and that the dispute is within the scope of the agreement), here the trial court instead found that even assuming arguendo that there was an enforceable arbitration provision, the demand was untimely.
By Ed Boltz, 5 May, 2014
Summary: Santoro brought suit against Accenture, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
By Ed Boltz, 5 November, 2013
Summary: The debtor brought adversary proceeding against Vanderbilt and its agent Mr. Gibson, alleging that they had violated N.C.G.S. §§ 75-51 through 54, by making harassing phone calls that caused an employment demotion and loss of pay, mental and emotional distress, panic attacks, and medical expenses and were, under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, unfair and deceptive trade practices, subjecting Vanderbilt to treble damages.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary: In this putative class action, prospective luxury home buyers allege that a real estate development company unlawfully refused to return deposits when the prospective buyers could not obtain mortgage financing. Toll Brothers sought to dismiss or stay pending arbitration, but the district court found the arbitration provision to be unenforceable as it only required buyers, and not Toll Brothers, to submit disputes to arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act “ is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements”, 9 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary: Knox obtained payday loans from loan servicers for Community State Bank (CSB), an out of state-chartered bank, and subsequently brought suit in state court alleging various violations of North Carolina lending and usury laws, as well as unfair and deceptive trade practices. In response, the loan servicers advanced on two fronts- first, the loan servicers sought to have the matters removed to federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) and Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) completely pre-empted state-law usury
By Ed Boltz, 12 March, 2013
Summary: Having previously found that several claims brought by the Debtor against Bank of America were, pursuant to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), core and subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, while others were “statutorily core, but did not qualify as constitutionally core”, the bankruptcy court retained the core issues and referred the non-core claims to arbitration.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary: The Court of Appeals held that arbitration rider in mortgage refinance agreement did not render consumer's right to rescind credit transaction unclear or non-conspicuous under TILA. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Klein v. Household Realty- Arbitration Rider did not Render Rescission Notice invalid under TILA.pdf
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013
Summary: Chapter 13 Debtor brought an Adversary Proceeding against Cashcall, seeking a declaratory judgment that the debt owed to Cashcall (resulting from a $1,500.00 payday loan) was in violation of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-164 to -191 (2012) and alleging that Cashcall engaged in acts that qualify as Prohibited Acts by Debt Collectors under N.C. Gen. Stat.