During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Following Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (2020) 140 S.Ct. 582, this decision holds that an order denying relief from the automatic stay is immediately appealable so long as it finally resolves the issue of whether the movant is entitled to relief from stay on the basis on which relief was sought, even if the denial is without prejudice… Read More

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to enact uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the nation.  This decision holds that Congress violated the uniformity requirement when it raised US Trustee fees in 2017 because, at that time, it did not also raise the fees charged bankrupts in the six districts in Alabama and North Carolina… Read More

An order unconditionally granting or denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy is final and appealable.  The 14-day window for filing an appeal from the order opens when the order is filed.  Stay relief is a proceeding separate from, and precedes, claim resolution. Read More

Corso obtained a default judgment against Rejuvi in a district court in South Australia.  Corso filed a proof of claim in Rejuvi's bankruptcy proceeding.  Rejuvi appealed from a bankruptcy court order allowing Corso's claim based on the South Australia default judgment.  Held, the claim was properly allowed.  Under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (CCP 1713 et seq.), Rejuvi… Read More

Mentioning an existing lawsuit in the debtor's statement of affairs is insufficient.  The claim must actually be listed as an asset in the debtor's schedules.  Otherwise, the claim is "unscheduled" and is not abandoned when the bankruptcy trustee decides it is a no asset estate and the bankruptcy court discharges the debtor and closes the case.  Accordingly, here, where plaintiff… Read More

In Law v. Siegel (2014) 571 U.S. 415, the US Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not use its equitable powers under 11 USC 105 to contravene express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  Applying that reasoning, this decision departs from prior Ninth Circuit precedent, In re Rosson (9th Cir. 2008) 545 F.3d 764, and holds that a bankruptcy… Read More

The anti-suit and other injunctions entered when Castlepoint was placed in receivership under the California Insurance Commissioner did not prevent suit by shareholders of a related entity against other related entities and their controlling officers and directors on claims of breach of contract (to which Castlepoint was not a party), tortious interference with that same contract, and breach of fiduciary… Read More

Distinguishing Law v. Siegel (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1188, this decision holds that a bankruptcy court may apply claim and issue preclusion doctrines to bar later assertion of exemptions it has already denied.  Here, Albert claimed two exemptions when she originally filed her Chapter 13 petition.  A creditor objected, and the bankruptcy court denied the exemptions.  Albert failed to appeal.  Later,… Read More

1 2 3 8