Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz) Case Brief

District Court, C.D. California2009Docket #1388919
400 B.R. 755 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10384 2009 WL 151218

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A boxer filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and his promotional contract was rejected. The court held that rejection is a breach, not a termination, of the contract. The promoter’s right to an injunction survives unless it is a dischargeable “claim,” a determination requiring further state law analysis.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under 11 U.S.C. § 365, rejection of an executory contract is a breach, not a termination. A non-debtor’s right to equitable relief survives unless it constitutes a dischargeable “claim” under § 101(5)(B), which requires a separate, state-law-based inquiry.

Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz) Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Victor Ortiz, a professional boxer, entered into a five-year exclusive promotional agreement with Top Rank, Inc. The contract was an executory personal services contract. Ortiz subsequently filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee did not assume the promotional agreement within the 60-day period prescribed by 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(1), resulting in the contract being “deemed rejected.” Ortiz then sought a declaratory judgment that the rejection terminated all his obligations under the contract, freeing him to sign with another promoter. Top Rank countered that rejection constituted only a breach, not a termination, and that its right to enforce the contract’s exclusivity provision via an injunction survived the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for Ortiz, holding that rejection terminated the contract and limited Top Rank’s remedy to a monetary claim against the estate. In the alternative, the bankruptcy court found the exclusivity provision unenforceable under Nevada law. Top Rank appealed to the district court.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the rejection of a personal services executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 automatically terminate the contract and extinguish the non-debtor party’s right to seek equitable relief against the debtor?

Reversed and remanded. The bankruptcy court erred in holding that rejection of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the rejection of a personal services executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 automatically terminate the contract and extinguish the non-debtor party’s right to seek equitable relief against the debtor?

Conclusion

This decision reinforces the majority view that contract rejection in bankruptcy is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc

Legal Rule

The rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g) constitutes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proi

Legal Analysis

The district court reversed the bankruptcy court on two grounds. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 is
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolo

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+