Is Anyone Surprised That Our Norm-Busting President Ignored the Debate Rules?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last night’s presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Dorf observes that Trump’s repeated violations of the agreed-upon rules of the debate; his outrageous substantive comments refusing to condemn white supremacy (and instead naming a specific white supremacist group) and declining to say he would accept the outcome of the election; and his callous response to Biden’s mention of Biden’s deceased son Beau should alert any yet unaware Americans to the fact that Trump has no sense of decency.

Read More

SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Gaddy

Docket: 19-11699

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: John Antoon, II

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

SEPH brought an adversary proceeding in debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy, requesting that the bankruptcy court declare the debt to SEPH exempt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) because debtor fraudulently conveyed his property, thwarting SEPH's efforts to collect the debt. The bankruptcy court rejected SEPH's claims, granted debtor's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the adversary proceeding. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Water's Edge judgment debt is not exempt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A), because the debt existed long before debtor began transferring his assets and that debt is an ordinary contract debt that did not arise from fraud of any kind. Furthermore, SEPH presents no binding authority that supports its assertion that a debtor's fraudulent conveyance of assets in an attempt to avoid collection of a preexisting debt renders that preexisting debt exempt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A). The court also held that the Water's Edge debt is not exempt from discharge under section 523(a)(6), because the debt was not "for willful and malicious injury" to SEPH or its property. Finally, the court held that the bankruptcy court correctly denied leave to amend because of the futility of SEPH's proposed amendment under the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

Docket: 19-10361

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: Luck

Areas of Law: Class Action, Consumer Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and individually, filed a class action alleging that the Ritz-Carlton violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's tax regulations. Plaintiff's complaint stemmed from allegations that he and others paid illegal automatic gratuities and sales taxes at Ritz-Carlton’s forty-nine restaurants in Florida over the last four years. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on lack of standing. The district court also dismissed the tax refund claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the tax refund claim based on exhaustion grounds. However, the court held that the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not have standing to represent the class because he only paid the illegal automatic gratuity at three of Ritz-Carlton's restaurants. The court agreed with plaintiff that the class complaint alleged in good faith that the amount-in-controversy for the hundreds of thousands of Ritz-Carlton guests in Florida that unlawfully paid an automatic gratuity over the last four years exceeded $5 million. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Bolatete

Docket: 18-14184

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: Edward Earl Carnes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871. The court rejected defendant's contention that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' power to tax and thus violates the Tenth Amendment. Rather, the court held that defendant's taxing power challenge is contrary to precedent and unsupported by the facts of this case. The court also rejected defendant's two unpreserved constitutional challenges under plain error review. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant was not entrapped where a reasonable jury could have found that defendant was ready and willing to buy an unregistered silencer absent any contact with the government's officers or agents. The court further held that it need not decide whether the district court erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In this case, the district court stated that it did not really matter because it would have varied upward from either range to impose a 60-month sentence. Finally, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court expressly considered defendant's age and health, and defendant's 60-month sentence was reasonable in light of the need to protect the public and to deter defendant from committing future crimes.