In re Adbox, Inc.

74 Citing cases

  1. Biltmore Associates v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.

    572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 51 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding policy's “insured vs. insured” exclusion precluded coverage of debtor's claims against its own directors and officers

    We deal with each of these arguments in turn. 488 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2007). A. Bankruptcy trustees.

  2. In re Winstar Comm

    554 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 233 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that equitable subordination of creditor's claims to equity interests were contrary to section 510(c)

    As to the affirmative defense conclusion, as the Ninth Circuit has held, "the earmarking doctrine is not an affirmative defense under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 8, but rather a challenge to the trustee's claim that particular funds are part of the bankruptcy estate." Metcalf v. Golden (In re Adbox, Inc.), 488 F.3d 836, 842 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the trustee has the burden of proving the avoidability of a transfer under subsection (b) of this section, "the trustee has the burden of establishing [under § 547(b)] that property is part of the bankruptcy estate."

  3. Ditto v. McCurdy

    510 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that an intervening Supreme Court decision “must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate ... announcement of the rule”

    We review the district court's decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court de novo, giving no deference to the district judge's determinations. Metcalf v. Golden (In re Adbox, Inc.), 488 F.3d 836, 839 (Cir.2007); First Ave. West Bldg., LLC v. James (In re Onecast Media, Inc.), 439 F.3d 558, 561 (Cir.2006). We review a grant of a summary judgment de novo. Metcalf, 488 F.3d at 840; Am. Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Nugent (In re Betacom of Phoenix, Inc.), 240 F.3d 823, 827-28 (Cir.2001).

  4. FBI Wind Down Inc. Liquidating Tr. v. All Am. Poly Corp. (In re FBI Wind Down, Inc.)

    581 B.R. 116 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that transfers made pursuant to unusual collection activity can defeat an ordinary course of business defense but denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because there was a dispute of material facts

    SeeRadnor Holdings Corp. v. PPT Consulting LLC (In re Radnor Holdings Corp.) , 2009 WL 2004226 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009).Schubert v. Lucent (In re Winstar Commc'ns, Inc.) , 554 F.3d 382, 400–01(3d Cir. 2009) (citing Metcalf v. Golden (In re Adbox, Inc.) , 488 F.3d 836, 842 (9th Cir 2007), and 11 U.S.C. § 547(g) ). While the Bankruptcy Code does not specifically define the term, the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean "property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings."

  5. Coin v. Khadavi (In re Khadavi)

    No. 23-60020 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023)

    Considering those undisputed facts, Green Coin fails to carry its burden to show that Khadavi unilaterally cancelled the agreement. See generally In re Adbox, Inc., 488 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the non-moving party bears the burden "to identify 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986))).

  6. Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    No. 22-55209 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2023)

    The district court also properly precluded Samsung from raising an election of remedies affirmative defense. Samsung failed to plead the defense in its answer, see In re Adbox, Inc., 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1), and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Samsung had not shown "good cause" to amend its answer at the close of discovery, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

  7. Mann v. LSQ Funding Grp.

    71 F.4th 640 (7th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Noting avoidance attempts under § 547(b) and § 548 "turn[ed] on the same question: whether the payoff agreement constituted an 'interest of the debtor in property' "

    We tread carefully in defining the doctrine, as neither the parties nor our sister circuits agree on whether this is an equitable exception to the Bankruptcy Code or an interpretation of the Code's plain language. Compare In re Adbox, Inc., 488 F.3d 836, 842 (9th Cir. 2007) with In re ESA Env't Specialists, Inc., 709 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 2013). II. Analysis

  8. Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc.

    51 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses

    "Express consent is ... an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proof," Van Patten , 847 F.3d at 1044, and a "defendant's failure to raise an ‘affirmative defense’ in his answer effects a waiver of that defense." In re Adbox, Inc. , 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2007) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(c). Here, ViSalus did not raise consent as a defense in its answer.

  9. Devon Inv., Inc. v. Andes Indus., Inc.

    No. 17-17205 (9th Cir. Jun. 6, 2019)

    However, the district court did not err in holding that this defense had been waived because Andes failed to plead it in its answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (fraud is an affirmative defense); Metcalf v. Golden (In re Adbox, Inc.), 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[A] defendant's failure to raise an 'affirmative defense' in his answer effects a waiver of that defense.").

  10. Leonard v. Oxbow Inv. Holdings, LLC (In re Asset Resolution, LLC)

    No. 17-16799 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2019)

    Because Oxbow did not raise this defense, it was waived. See In re Adbox, Inc., 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Oxbow to introduce testimony in support of a defense it had not raised in its answer.