Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiffs’ complaint under Fair Housing Act and American With Disabilities Act, alleging that defendant-bank discriminated against them when, as part of loan application process, it asked for information that would demonstrate that their Social Security disability benefits, which plaintiff identified as source of loan repayment, would last for at least three years. Plaintiffs failed to allege that others were treated more favorably, and record otherwise indicated that defendant asked every applicant to demonstrate that their current income was likely to continue for three-year period. Fact that defendant settled another case in which it promised not to ask for similar information from other applicants did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant owed plaintiff $140,000 in lost royalties pursuant to contract that required defendant to purchase from plaintiff certain knobs produced by plaintiff that defendant used in certain brand lines of washing machines and dryers, even though plaintiff argued that appropriate remedy was lost profits arising out of defendant’s failure to “consider” plaintiff’s knobs for other brand lines as required by terms of contract. Terms of contract merely stated that defendant would pay royalties associated with manufacture of knobs if it failed to consider plaintiff’s knobs for other brand lines. As such, plaintiff could not obtain lost profits arising out of any lost sales of knobs.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff, alleging that defendants breached warranty contained in security agreement used to secure loan from plaintiff, where collateral for said loan was defendants’ rights to payments contained in lease of locomotive to third-party. Record showed that locomotive was damaged in transit to third-party and was in repair shop at deadline for delivery of locomotive to third-party as set forth in security agreement, and third-party rejected said locomotive when it was eventually delivered to third-party due to its damaged condition. While Dist. Ct. found that under terms of lease and UCC defendants satisfied one warranty where third-party had “accepted” locomotive at time of its shipment, Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiff was entitled to recover loan proceeds from defendants because defendants had breached another warranty due to their failure to establish that third-party had acknowledged receipt of locomotive as required in terms of security agreement.

Dist. Ct. properly dismissed plaintiff’s action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that defendant improperly attempted to collect on plaintiff’s debt while plaintiff had pending bankruptcy petition. Plaintiff failed to provide notice to defendant of said bankruptcy petition, and plaintiff lacked standing to pursue such action, where Bankruptcy Ct. had found that such action belonged to Trustee to pursue on behalf of plaintiff’s creditors. Ct. further noted that defendant had obtained vacatur of state ct. judgment that formed basis of plaintiff’s action.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-employee alleging that defendant breached employment contract by failing to give him duties of project control manager of certain construction project. Terms of instant contract indicated that plaintiff would be given title of project control manager at specific job site and with specific salary, and plaintiff received all three promised items. Moreover, plaintiff could not use extrinsic evidence to establish what duties he would be doing where terms of instant contract were unambiguous, and weight of extrinsic evidence would have supported defendant’s claim that plaintiff was to be given title of project control manger, but duties of different position.