H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No. 19117 

Dylan G. Trache, Va. Bar No. 45939 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 

101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 689-2800 

Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee 

THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In re: ) 

) Bankruptcy Case 

DAVID MICHAEL MARESCA, ) No. 20-11483-KHK 

) Chapter 7 

Debtor. ) 

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S RESPONSE TO THE DEBTOR’S AMENDED MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER CONVERTING CHAPTER 11 CASE TO CHAPTER 

7 PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) OR MOTION TO RECONVERT CHAPTER 7 CASE TO 

CHAPTER 11 PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 706(a), (b) 

Comes now, H. Jason Gold, the Chapter 7 Trustee (“Trustee”) in the above captioned 

matter and files this Response to the Debtor’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Order 

Converting Chapter 11 Case to Chapter 7 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Motion to Reconvert Chapter 

7 Case to Chapter 11 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 706(a), (b) (“Motion to Reconsider”) (Doc No. 

114) and states to the Court as follows: 

1. The standard for reconsideration is strict – a court may amend a judgment for 

three reasons: (i) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law, (ii) to account for 

new evidence not available at trial, or (iii) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest 

injustice. See E.E.O.C. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F3d 110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997) citing 

Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). None of the arguments raised in the 

Motion to Reconsider reach these high standards. There has been no change in controlling law, 

all evidence was available at trial even if the Debtor chose not to present certain evidence, and 

the conversion of this case not an injustice, much less a manifest injustice. Similarly, 

reconversion (even if possible despite the plain language of § 706(a)) is not appropriate in this 

Case 20-11483-KHK Doc 135 Filed 03/16/21 Entered 03/16/21 10:05:04 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 4
2 

instance. The administration of this case by the Trustee, including the sale of the Property 

(hereafter defined) will result in the better outcome for creditors in this case. In addition, the 

Trustee joins and adopts the arguments raised by the Office of the United States Trustee in its 

Opposition to the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 125) and provides this further response to 

advise the Court of the status of his preliminary investigation of the assets and liabilities of the 

Debtor. 

2. The Debtor’s schedules reveal more than $1 million in general unsecured claims, 

including numerous sanctions awards and judgments entered by various courts. The largest 

judgment is in favor of the United States Trustee in an amount of not less than $220,500.00. 

These judgments and sanctions awards appear to relate to the non-lawyer Debtor’s ownership 

and operation of Synergy Law LLC.1

3. The Trustee has conducted a site inspection of the Debtor’s real property located 

at 13159 Lakehill Drive, Nokesville, Virginia 20181 (the “Property”). The Property has 

significant equity and may be liquidated to provide a meaningful distribution to creditors. 

However, the Trustee is concerned that the current condition of the Property and the Debtor’s 

continued possession thereof is detrimental to his sale and marketing efforts. 

4. The Trustee is also in the process of investigating the operations of the other 

entities owned by the Debtor: Synergy Consulting, Synergy Attorney Services, Synergy Catering 

LLC, and Themis Law PLLC. While this investigation is ongoing, the Trustee is concerned that 

the continued operation of these entities exposes the Debtor’s estate to the risk of additional 

liability. For example, the Debtor revealed at the Section 341 meeting of creditors that he is 

paying himself $4,000.00 per month on a 1099 contract basis from the operations of Themis Law 

1

The Debtor is a 90% owner of each of these entities. Synergy Law LLC is a debtor in a chapter 7 proceeding in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. 

Case 20-11483-KHK Doc 135 Filed 03/16/21 Entered 03/16/21 10:05:04 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 4
3 

PLLC, but it appears that the Debtor may be more properly classified as an employee of Themis 

Law PLLC. In addition, Themis Law PLLC appears to have many of the same faults that led to 

the bankruptcy filing of Synergy Law LLC. Themis Law PLLC continues to employ a disbarred 

lawyer, Jeffrey Sherman as compliance officer. While the Debtor testified at the Section 341 

meeting that Mr. Sherman’s duties are limited to non-legal functions, the Trustee is concerned 

that some of Mr. Sherman’s activities might be considered the practice of law. 

5. Finally, the Trustee has reviewed the Debtor’s exemptions and believes that many 

of the exemptions are not only improper but asserted in bad faith. For example, the Debtor has 

attempted to utilize the tools of the trade exemption in Va. Code Ann. § 34-26(7) to exempt 

assets that are completely unrelated to the legal services business that he operates such as: a king 

sleigh bed, a mahogany inlaid 7 drawer dresser, a mahogany inlaid armoire, mahogany inlaid 

sleigh bed brass claws, a massage chair, two ottomans, a Samsung fridge, a signature queen 

bed/headboard/frame, a small wine refrigerator glass door, a solid oak dining table with 6 chairs 

& leaf, stone benches, a Thomasville Coffee table, Thomasville wooden end tables, swivel bar 

stools and chairs, a TV cabinet, five televisions, a lat pull-down machine, a rowing machine, 

assorted weights, garden tools and a John Deer mower. The Trustee believes that no good faith 

basis exists to assert the tools of the trade exemption with respect to these items and will be filing 

an objection.2

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to 

Reconsider and grant such other relief as is just and proper. 

2

 In addition, the Trustee will object to the Debtor objections under Va. Code Ann. § 34-26(2) as the Debtor has not 

provided evidence that such property has been “transferred from an ancestor to a descendant with the intention that 

it remain in the family.” In re Pullman, 317 B.R. 324, 326 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2004). 

Case 20-11483-KHK Doc 135 Filed 03/16/21 Entered 03/16/21 10:05:04 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 4
4 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 H. JASON GOLD, TRUSTEE 

 By Counsel 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 

101 Constitution Avenue, NW / Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20001 

Tel: 202.689.2800 

Fax: 202.689.2860 

Email: jason.gold@nelsonmullins.com

dylan.trache@nelsonmullins.com

By: /s/ Dylan G. Trache 

H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No. 19117 

Dylan G. Trache, Va. Bar No. 45939 

Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of March 2021, the foregoing was served by 

first class mail, postage prepaid, to: 

Office of the United States Trustee 

1725 Duke Street, Suite 650 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Steven H. Greenfeld 

Cohen Baldinger & Greenfeld, LLC 

2600 Tower Oaks Blvd. 

Suite 290 

Rockville, MD 20852 

John D. Burns 

The Burns Law Firm, LLC 

6303 Ivy Lane 

Suite 102 

Greenbelt, MD 20770 

/s/ Dylan G. Trache 

Dylan G. Trache 

4844-4359-2928 

Case 20-11483-KHK Doc 135 Filed 03/16/21 Entered 03/16/21 10:05:04 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 4