HOLDINGS: [1]-Federal court had authority to determine the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the trust because there was no estate being probated, there was nothing being administered by an executor or any other person in the state courtRather, there was a dispute as to the effect of a written document – the trust agreement; [2]-The motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice because the court had to determine what interests the debtor and the bankruptcy estate had and have, if any, was a necessary condition precedent for adjudicating whether the automatic stay was violatedThe parties may have considered hiring San Diego litigation lawyer.
Outcome
Motion for summary judgment denied.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The commercial distributor’s claims that alleged violations of 47 U.S.C.S§§ 605 and 553 failed because the statutory language was unambiguous and did not support an interpretation that included signals besides radio, satellite, and cable, and the court declined to extend the interpretation of the statutes to include unauthorized broadcasts via the internet; [2]-Because the federal causes of action were resolved, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the distributor’s remaining state law claims.
Outcome
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted as to federal claimsState law claims dismissed without prejudice.
