Source: http://nmb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions?field_opinion_date_value%5Bvalue%5D&field_judge_nid=All&page=8
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 12:03:22
Document Index: 185872045

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1225', '§ 1109', '§1128', '§ 521', '§ 521', '§ 521', '§ 362', '§ 521']

Keywords/Topic Date Title Description Judge Discovery 12/17/2015 United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. On a motion to compel compliance with subpoena and the objection thereto, the Court acknowledged the split in authority on the issue of whether Rule 45(b)(1) requires personal service of a subpoena or whether some other form of service is sufficient, but did not decide the issue, finding, instead, that service of a subpoena on a corporation to the attention of “Records Custodian” fails to comply with the requirements for service on a corporation. Because the target of the subpoena waived its objection to defective service on such basis, the Court considered the motion to compel on the merits and granted motion in part, requiring production of certain requested documents.
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Discharge 12/14/2015 Phillips 66 Company v. Dale Ritchie et al. Creditor bought an action under 727(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5), objecting to Debtors’ discharge. After a trial on the merits, the Court ruled that the (a)(2) claim did not have merit, because the Debtors did not fraudulently conceal property. The Court also ruled against Plaintiff’s (a)(4) claim, because Debtors did not make a false statement, and any omissions were the result of honest error rather than fraudulent intent. Finally, the Court ruled against Plaintiff’s (a)(5) claim, because the Debtors provided sufficient documentation regarding the transaction. Discharge granted.
Judge David T. Thuma Chapter 12, Confirmation 12/04/2015 Bright Harvesting Inc.; Gary and Gennifer Bright Debtors sought confirmation of their respective Chapter 12 plans. Secured creditor objected, arguing, inter alia, that the plans were not feasible. After adjusting debtors' projections based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found the plans offered a reasonable prospect of success and were workable. The Court conditioned confirmation on the debtors changing or clarifying certain plan provisions in their confirmation orders. Such changes were necessary to satisfy the remaining requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1225.
Judge David T. Thuma Adversary, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Due Process, Jurisdiction, Service 11/20/2015 Philip J. Montoya v. Nancy Akbari-Shahmirzadi et al. Defendants sought to dismiss the adversary proceeding on the grounds that, inter alia, the Court lacked jurisdiction and the proceeding was moot. The Court analyzed dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6). The Court determined movants could not seek dismissal on behalf of defendants they did not represent, that the matter was not moot based on an earlier settlement, and that it had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants who were served in the United States.
Judge David T. Thuma Collateral Estoppel, Damages, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability 11/19/2015 H. Steven Murphy v. MKM Investments, LLC et al. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that their debt was nondischargeable, based on two pre-petition state court judgments. The Court declined to give preclusive effect to the first judgment, which appeared to be a default judgment, but allowed the plaintiffs to supplement the record with other evidence. The Court determined that the findings in the second judgment were sufficient to establish defendant committed actual fraud and willfully and maliciously injured plaintiffs' property. Since the second judgment did not include any findings about the amount of damages caused by defendant's conduct, the Court allowed plaintiffs to supplement the record on damages.
Judge David T. Thuma Standing 11/18/2015 The Vaughan Company Realtors Creditors whose unsecured, non-priority unsecured claims were disallowed against the bankruptcy estate lacked both Article III constitutional standing and statutory standing under § 1109(b) and §1128() to object to the Chapter 11 Trustee’s Chapter 11 plan. Creditors did not have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Chapter 11 plan and could not demonstrate that they would suffer any injury in fact resulting from any of the plan’s provisions. Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Class Action 11/10/2015 Caroline Tullie v. Quick Cash, Inc. The putative class representative satisfied all requirements for class certification under Federal Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), made applicable to adversary proceedings by Fed.R.Bank.P. 7023: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority. Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Class Action 11/10/2015 Quick Cash Inc. Class proofs of claim are permitted in bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy court may, in its discretion, apply Federal Rule 23 (governing class actions) through Bankruptcy Rule 9014 and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to the claims allowance process to allow a class representative to file a class proof of claim on behalf of all similarly situated members of the class. The following factors are relevant to the Court’s decision to apply Rule 7023 to allow the filing of a class proof of claim: whether the class has been certified; notice of the bankruptcy claims bar date to class members or putative class members; whether public policy reasons favoring class action suits should be applied to the claims process; the nature of the class action, including whether it is an opt in or opt out class; the timing of the request to file a class proof of claim; whether potential jurisdictional issues impede the filing of a class proof of claim; and the potential impact of the filing of a class proof of claim om the debtor’s reorganization prospects, the potential prejudice to other creditors, and the potential benefit to class members. Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Automatic Stay, BAPCPA, Reaffirmation Agreements 11/02/2015 Mark and Melanie Williamson Debtors filed a statement of intention indicating an intent to retain a manufactured home subject to creditor’s security interest and to continue to pay the debt. Debtors did not seek to reaffirm the debt and did not seek to redeem the property. The Court denied creditor’s motion to 1) compel debtors to comply with their duties under § 521 by entering into a reaffirmation agreement; and 2) to delay the entry of the debtors’ discharge, holding that a creditor’s exclusive remedy with respect to the property based on the debtors’ failure to comply with their duties under § 521(a)(2) and/or § 521(a)(6) is provided in § 362(h)(1) and the hanging paragraph under § 521(a)(6): termination of the automatic stay and removal of the property from the bankruptcy estate. The creditor may proceed to exercise its rights with respect to the property as may be permitted under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Attorneys Fees, Fees, Sanctions 10/30/2015 Robert I. Maese, Sr. et. al v. Rovert Maese, Jr. et. al Plaintiffs sought attorney fees in connection with obtaining an order compelling discovery. The Court found that under Rule 37(a)(5), Plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable fees incurring in drafting the motion to compel, attending hearings on the motion to compel, preparing a discovery order, and preparing the attorney fee affidavit. Plaintiffs were not entitled to fees incurred in their good faith attempt to obtain discovery or for reviewing the documents that were produced.