Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

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.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-franchisor’s motion to stay several related lawsuits pending arbitration in actions seeking declaration that plaintiffs-franchisees were not required under terms of franchise agreements to participate in defendant’s corporate pricing and promotions of menu items offered in their franchise restaurants, where defendant argued that plaintiffs’ disputes were covered by arbitration policy that was adopted for all franchisees after plaintiffs had filed instant lawsuits. While each franchisee’s agreement contained right of defendant to institute non-binding arbitration, arbitration clause in said agreements was illusory because defendant was free to exercise arbitration clause at its whim. Ct also found that arbitration clause in each agreement was too vague and indefinite to be enforceable, where defendant could decide at its sole discretion issues regarding whether and how claims against it would be arbitrated.