Court Opinion

ID: 9696588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:52:01.501888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:23.799278
License: Public Domain

KRESSEL, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the majority31 opinion with the exception of Part Cl, from which I dissent. As the majority indicates, there is no requirement of a request of a party in interest before the court can remove a trustee. I take that omission to be intentional and relevant. Numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code require both the request of a party in interest and notice and a hearing. Many require notice and a hearing, but no request of a party in interest and a few require neither. By carefully using those phrases, Congress signaled its grant of authority to bankruptcy judges to remove trustees sua sponte. Regarding the phrase “after notice and a hearing” Congress tells us that that requires “such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity for hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances.... ” The Supreme Court has not promulgated any specific rules dealing with the removal of a trustee, so judges who wish to proceed sua sponte are left somewhat to their own devices. The judges in these two cases chose to proceed by order to show cause, but there is no rule that requires that. The statute only requires the trustee receive such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances. Under the circumstances, because of the long history of the proceedings in the Morgan case, the earlier, albeit by a day, entry of the order to show cause in the Morgan case and the reference in the Dedmon order to show cause to the Morgan order and case all would lead me to conclude that notice was appropriate under the circumstances. Certainly Goldman knew that it was her conduct in the Morgan case that led the judge in the Dedmon case to issue his order to show *857cause. It was, in fact, her conduct in the Morgan case which lead the Dedmon judge to remove her.
I think the majority is being entirely too punctilious in concluding that the notice in the Dedmon case was insufficient. I would affirm both orders.

. I refer to Judge Federman’s opinion as the majority opinion. In his opinion, Judge Fed-erman speaks for me and for himself in affirming the order entered in the Morgan case. Judge Federman speaks for Judge Mahoney and himself in reversing the order in the Dedmon case. Simple arithmetic indicates that that opinion represents the judgment of the court as to both appeals.