Pegany v. C&H Sugar Co., Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Evans v. Bernales

    2:21-cv-02247-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Jul. 6, 2023)

    379 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Murry v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1999).

  2. Stilwell v. Caesars Entm't Corp.

    2:19-cv-1896-KJD-VCF (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2022)

    Its conduct is in bad faith if there is “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.” Id. A union's conduct is arbitrary “only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,' as to be irrational.'” Pegany v. C & H Sugar Co., Inc., 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Air Line Pilots Ass'n., Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991)); see also Salinas v. Milne Truck Lines, Inc., 846 F.2d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A union's conduct may not be deemed arbitrary simply because of an error in evaluating the merits of a grievance.”).

  3. Stillwell v. Caesars Entm't Corp.

    Case No. 2:19-CV-01896-KJD-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2021)

    A union's conduct is arbitrary "only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness,' as to be irrational.'" Pegany v. C & H Sugar Co., Inc., 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Air Line Pilots Ass'n., Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991)); see also Salinas v. Milne Truck Lines, Inc., 846 F.2d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1988) ("A union's conduct may not be deemed arbitrary simply because of an error in evaluating the merits of a grievance.").

  4. Gardner v. Starkist Co.

    418 F. Supp. 3d 443 (N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that neither total ownership and shared management personnel nor a parent company "reviewing and approving major decisions, placing several of its directors on the subsidiary's board, and involving itself in the subsidiary's pricing decisions" suffices to establish an alter-ego relationship

    Alleging that StarKist cannot afford current debts does not allege that it was not adequately capitalized at the time the company was formed. SeeOddenino & Gaule v. United Fin. Grp. of Illinois , 201 F.3d 444, 444 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding a subsidiary is not considered inadequately capitalized where it was "once adequately capitalized but subsequently fell upon bad financial times") (internal quotation marks omitted). At the hearing, plaintiffs cited a 1989 Ninth Circuit case to support its contention that courts may look to post-formation inadequate capitalization under the alter ego theory.

  5. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sunclipse, Inc.

    85 F. Supp. 2d 842 (N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that the action in that case did not involve product disparagement/trade libel and thus did not create a duty to defend, but implying that if it had, it would have raised such a duty

    This conclusion is supported by a more recent Ninth Circuit opinion which affirmed a finding in favor of the insurer where the plaintiff in the underlying action charged the insured with misappropriation of its trade secrets, including its marketing techniques and customer lists, because such allegations did not fall within the advertising injury provision of the insurance policy. See Pierce Companies, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 201 F.3d 444, 1999 WL 1011862, at *2 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 1999). In so holding, the court noted, "[i]t is clear that the gravamen of this complaint was that [the insured] had misappropriated Color Image's trade secrets and was using them to produce a [protectible product.]"

  6. Albert-Sheridan v. State Bar of Cal. (In re Albert-Sheridan)

    658 B.R. 516 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Additionally, § 362(k) allows individual debtors to recover damages caused by a violation of the automatic stay. See Koeberer v. Cal. Bank of Com. (In re Koeberer), 632 B.R. 680, 687 (9th Cir. BAP 2021); Ramirez v. Fuselier (In re Ramirez), 183 B.R. 583, 589 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), appeal dismissed sub nom., Ramirez v. Sharp (In re Ramirez), 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1999) (table). To recover actual damages under § 362(k), the debtor must allege and prove that the stay violation was willful, specifically that the defendant "knew of the automatic stay, and its actions in violation of the stay were intentional."

  7. In re Gonzalez

    BAP NV-06-1154-SBN (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2007)

    Once a creditor has knowledge of the bankruptcy, he is deemed to have knowledge of the automatic stay. Ramirez v. Fuselier (In re Ramirez), 183 B.R. 583, 589 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), appeal dismissed, 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1999)(table). While notice is relevant to the question of willfulness, it does not matter that the creditor did not receive formal notice of the petition from the court.

  8. In re Ozenne

    337 B.R. 214 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 72 times

    Knowledge of the bankruptcy filing is the legal equivalent of knowledge of the automatic stay. In re Ramirez, 183 B.R. 583, 589 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), appeal dismissed, 201 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1999) (table). While notice is relevant to the question of willfulness, it does not matter that Dollar did not receive formal notice of the petition from the court.

  9. In re Henry

    266 B.R. 457 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001)

    Damages awarded under § 362(h) are statutory damages, not damages based on contempt. See Ramirez v. Fuselier (In re Ramirez), 183 B.R. 583, 589 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), appeal dismissed, 201 F.3d 444, 1999 WL 831916 (9th Cir.1999) (awarding damages under § 362(h) at time when Ninth Circuit case law denied contempt power to bankruptcy courts). A bankruptcy court may award damages for a violation of the automatic stay under its contempt powers, even apart from § 362(h).

  10. In re Henry

    266 B.R. 457 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that contempt proceedings are not equivalent to tort actions for purposes of determining damages

    Damages awarded under § 362(h) are statutory damages, not damages based on contempt.See Ramirez v. Fuselier (In re Ramirez), 183 B.R. 583, 589 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), appeal dismissed, 201 F.3d 444 1999 WL 831916 (9th Cir. 1999) (awarding damages under § 362(h) at time when Ninth Circuit case law denied contempt power to bankruptcy courts). A bankruptcy court may award damages for a violation of the automatic stay under its contempt powers, even apart from § 362(h).