Gugliuzza v. Federal Trade Commission (In re Gugliuzza)
- Summarized by Lars Fuller , BakerHostetler
- 7 years 9 months ago
- Case Type:
- Business
- Case Status:
- Dismissed
- Citation:
- No. 15-55510 (9th Circuit, Mar 24,2017) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- 9th Circuit dismissed appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review district court's order, which reversed in part a bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment against a bankruptcy debtor and remanded for further fact-finding in an adversary proceeding brought by Federal Trade Commission. Panel lacked jurisdiction because district court's judgment did not end the litigation on the merits, and district court did not certify for interlocutory review. Cases were no longer binding that held that remands for further fact finding by BAP or district court were final, appealable orders.
- Procedural context:
- Bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of creditor, and debtor appealed to district court, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to bankruptcy court for further fact finding. Debtor appealed to 9th Circuit.
- Facts:
- FTC successfully brought enforcement action against Gugliuzza and his former company, Commerce Planet, alleging violation of FTC Act. In assessing Gugliuzza's liability, district court relied on test for deceptive trade practice that practice was deceptive if there was a material representation, omission, or practice that was likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably. District court held that Gugliuzza and Commerce Planet were liable under that standard. District court awarded FTC $18.2 million in damages, and following appeal, amended judgment to be jointly and severally liable against Gugliuzza. Gugliuzza filed bankruptcy under chapter 7. FTC sued to except debt from dischargeability under 523(a)(2)(A) (fraud), and filed motion for summary judgment, seeking to apply collateral estoppel to prior findings in district court action. Bankruptcy court granted summary judgment, apply collateral estoppel to find that elements of 523(a)(2)(A) were actually litigated and determined in FTC's prior action. Debtor appealed to district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held that bankruptcy court correctly applied collateral estoppel to preclude relitgation of four of the five elements of 523(a)(2)(A), but erred in holding that Gugliuzza was collaterally estopped from relitigating issue of his intent to deceive customers.
- Judge(s):
- Callahan, Bea, Ikuta
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
