Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose when elderly widow Dorothy Chase Stewart filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and Wells Fargo Bank filed a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court reciting debts owed from an outstanding mortgage on Ms. Stewart's house. The bankruptcy court subsequently found that Wells Fargo's mortgage claims exhibited systematic errors arising from its highly automated, computerized loan-administration program and issued an injunction requiring Wells Fargo to audit every proof of claim it had filed on or filed after April 13, 2007; to provide a complete loan history on every account and file that history with the appropriate court; and "to amend...proofs of claim already on file to comply with the principles established in this case and [In re] Jones." Wells Fargo appealed, challenging the claim amount and the injunction. The court vacated the injunction as exceeding the reach of the bankruptcy court. Because neither the injunction nor the calculation of Ms. Stewart's debt was properly before the court, the court dismissed as moot Wells Fargo's appeal of legal rulings underlying the bankruptcy court's interpretation of the mortgage.

Plaintiffs brought an enforcement suit against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that defendants' practice of offering discounted telephone services to employees and retirees ("Concession") was not a pension plan in whole or in part. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the district court did not err in holding that Concession was one plan, at least as it regarded to all retirees; in refusing to examine the out-of-region retiree Concession in isolation; in concluding that although Concession did provide income to some retirees, such income was incidental to the benefit, and was not designed for the purpose of paying retirement income; and in holding that Concession did not result in a deferral of income.

Plaintiff sued defendant under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2800.51-.59, for his injuries that resulted from his firing a Remington Model 710 rifle ("rifle"). At issue was whether the district court erred in its findings regarding the bolt-assembly pin and its "reasonably-anticipated-use" finding. The court applied a highly deferential standard and held that the district court did not clearly err when it found that the bolt-assembly pin was not in the rifle when plaintiff fired it and suffered injuries from the uncontained explosion. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err when it found that defendant should not have expected the rifle to be fired after someone had removed, but failed to install, the bolt-assembly pin. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial.