David J. Pertuso, Karen A. Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that no private right of action exists for violations of § 524(a), but that “the traditional remedy for violation of [the discharge] injunction lies in contempt proceedings . . . .”
• holding no private cause of action under either § 524 or § 105 for violation of § 524
• holding that there is no private right of action under 11 U.S.C. § 524, the statute which governs bankruptcy discharge injunctions, and that “the traditional remedy for violation of an injunction lies in contempt proceedings . . .” before the court that issued the injunction
• noting that “the recognition of a private right of action requires affirmative evidence of congressional intent in the language and purpose of the statute or in its legislative history”
• holding state law claim was preempted where it both stood as an obstacle to Congress’s purposes by undermining uniformity of the Code and that Congress had preempted the field of bankruptcy
• noting that section 362 contains private right of action for violation of automatic stay in individ-ual case, unlike section 524, which includes no private right of action and instead relies on contempt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).